Jump to content

User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Sega Genesis and Mega Drive

I don't see how you could possibly have seen a consensus for change at Talk:Sega Genesis and Mega Drive#Requested move. Was there something wrong with our arguments in opposition that caused you to discount them? Powers T 17:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing at all. Let's just say that there were no strong arguments on either side but overwhelming support to move the article. --regentspark (comment) 18:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It was 10 to 5 by my count, and the legitimate policy-based objections were not addressed by proponents. Powers T 01:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Second_opinion_on_RM_closure. --regentspark (comment) 14:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I just became aware of this move. The worst part is that there was an explicit request to delay closure, which was ignored. This is a case that called for wider input via RFC, not closing it. I'm surprised at your action.

I see you asked for a second opinion and the other admins apparently backed you up. Shocking. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:DR. --regentspark (comment) 20:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:DR#Discuss_with_the_other_party. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Touche! (Am I the other party?) --regentspark (comment) 21:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I dispute your closing decision for the reasons given above. How do you respond? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I've already given my reasoning above. And, the second opinion served as a sanity check. If, as you say, this calls for a wider input via RfC then there is nothing in the move that prevents you from initiating one so I'm not sure what you expect from me. (I assume the comment that ended with "shocking" was mere venting.) --regentspark (comment) 22:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The "shocking" was sarcasm - it is my experience that usually an admin has to do something off-the-scale egregious before other admins object.

The RFC was needed during the discussion, not now, after you closed it.

What I expect from you is acknowledgment that you shouldn't have closed, especially with an explicit request to keep it open, and that you will seek wider input instead of closing in such a situation in the future. What I mean by "such a situation" is where an unusual title decision is being made. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong or inappropriate of course, but that it probably should be vetted by a broader than normal audience, and make sure that lots of experienced eyes take a look.

I mean, in a situation where many requests remain open for weeks and weeks, what is the hurry to close such an unusual one and where discussion is ongoing? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your expectation is likely to go unfulfilled. In my opinion I closed it correctly and see no reason to make any acknowledgement of the sort you request. If this answer does not satisfy you, I suggest you take this to other venues. Regards. --regentspark (comment) 22:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Your refusal to explain your closing in more detail speaks for itself. I can hope that maybe something inside of you will influence you to not be so hasty next time because of this "discussion" (such as it is). I can hope. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I doubt it because I think this was one of the more straight forward closes I've done. But, of course, you're welcome to your hopes. --regentspark (comment) 00:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you check

Good to talk to you again. Manormadman has objected to the hoax page speedy nom notice I left on their user page (back in April) regarding C-84 confidential. I'd ordinarily just write this off as both stale and lame, but that notice is kind of a nasty one and if I notified the wrong user, I'd like to correct it on their talk page and his edit count shows no deleted edits even though the article was subsequently deleted. Would you mind taking a look at the edit history on that article to see if I messed up so that I can make amends if I did? I'll watch here for your response. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you notified the wrong user. C-84 Confidential was the work of Mikaelcustomery, a user who appears to have no other edits than the deleted ones on that article. --regentspark (comment) 20:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll apologize. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Weigh in?

Would you like to weigh in at the discussion in Talk:India on some 40 odd images? I know that's a lot, but a simple Yes/No would be adequate. Of course, if you choose to comment at more length, it would be even better. The India page is now the second most-viewed country page (after the US) and the 15th page overall, so having a set of high quality representative pictures becomes even more imperative. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

PS That picture of a room full of smiling children was special. You must have said something really funny, for every last child had a smile on their face. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Weighed in with a simple list. Looks like a nice collection you've got together there. --regentspark (comment) 19:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Kodak

Hi, RegentsPark. I am very puzzled by your close of the move request at Talk:Eastman Kodak. Vegaswikian relisted it on the sixth, apparently feeling there was no clear consensus. The only comment posted after that relisting opposed the move, yet you found a consensus in favor. That seems very strange. You say WP:NCCORP was applicable, but no one in the discussion provided any evidence beyond the anecdotal that "Kodak" actually is the common name for the company. I ask you to please reverse your decision until there is a clear consensus in favor of a move. Powers T 02:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Powers. A couple of !voters had indicated that "the article, the company's website, the products, logo, and pretty miuch everyone else" uses Kodak rather than Eastman Kodak. I looked at the first four and that seems to be correct (can't verify the pretty much everyone else part but it appears reasonable). Which is why NCCORP applies. Common name is a fairly well established policy point on wikipedia and the evidence provided makes it one of the clearer cases to me. Hope this helps. --regentspark (comment) 16:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources tend to use "Eastman Kodak" on first use and "Kodak" thereafter only as a shorthand. Further, there is some confusion between the brand name "Kodak" and the company name; many uses of the word "Kodak" alone actually refer to the brand, not to the company (that's where 'products' and 'logo' come into play; they shouldn't be relevant in determining the title of the company's article). Powers T 17:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
It may well be the case that reliable sources use Eastman Kodak rather than Kodak. However, that was not an argument raised in the RM discussion (the contrary argument was made by one !voter and that went unchallenged). The branding issue was raised but no evidence provided. Sorry, but not much I can do here. --regentspark (comment) 17:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As I am trying to reverse what I feel is an erroneous close, I don't think I should have to wait until "a later date" to propose reversing it. There was no strong consensus for this move, so it should not gain the extra weight of being the status quo for which I need to garner a consensus to change. It should be the other way around -- a strong consensus should be shown in order to decline to revert to the original status quo. Since you closed my attempt to re-assess this consensus in light of evidence I had to go out and find, I am left with no option but to follow your suggestion and open an AN/I thread; you can find a link to it at Talk:Kodak. Powers T 00:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

More images in Demographics

I was afraid that people would say the my selection of the 12 images was geographically biased, which they did, even though my choices reflect the bias in Indian FPs. Fearing more such complaints, and the process dragging on, I've added 24 new images to the Demographics set, making a complete set of 36 representing every state and religion in India, with the exception of native Andaman Island(er)s and Indian Jews, both, sadly, dying communities. If you'd like to change your vote, in light of the new images, please do; otherwise, your old choices will remain as is. The new images are not FPs, since the first set of 12 had exhausted all the India FPs; however, they are still good hi-res images. I had to go through some 10 thousand images to find them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see why the first set of pictures were featured pictures. Will comment later. Thanks fowler (for the herculean effort). --regentspark (comment) 10:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand press: Myanmar (New Zealand Herald - not sure if this is a major newspaper or not). [7] --regentspark (comment) 13:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

See List of print media in New Zealand.

To fill in a little details. The press is structured more like America than England (I used England specifically as Scotland has its own newspapers), that is all the papers are regional. But the country is similar to Southern Ireland, in that it has about the same population and it has one really big city (Auckland) which the next two added together would be about 1/3 as big. But unlike Southern Ireland where the capital and Big City are one an the same thing in NZ the capital is Wellington. Hence its paper is at least as influential as Auckland as it is read by those who work in the capital including of course ministers and their side kicks. So the big two are The NZ Herald (Auckland) and the Dominion Post (Wellington).

Because the country is so small, the papers tend to concentrate on local issues and buy in articles from abroad for foreign affairs. So the majority of their oversees articles tend to come from Britain (time difference works well and presumably its been happening for generations) although some come from the NYT and the Washington Post, different papers have affiliation with different papers in Britain. The Herald seems to take a lot from the Torygraph and the Indy. Short factual articles will of course come from the wire services that are used by most papers world wide.

On the specific question of Burma one has to take into consideration two things. Where thy sources most of their news and as articles, those about Burma will tend to come from the British press they will tend to use Burma. However local pieces have a political slant. The previous NZ government were closer to than the current one New Zealand Opposition Slams Government Over Burma Link Tuesday, 05 February 2008 Clark's government called the place Myanmar. On the 2 December last, the current Government changed the name back to Burma (NZ government ditches Myanamar {sic} for Burma) Hence the current official page Burma - New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Burma (Myanmar)

The result of this is that the name NOW used locally tends to reflect local politics. A journalist and paper who favour labour will be more likely to use "Myanmar (Burma)" and vice versa. But overall Burma tends to be more common (as reflected in these two articles above which were the first two on the subject found via a google search). -- PBS (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanantion PBS. If nothing else, it shows that the choice of name for that country is as complicated in the real world as it is on wikipedia. An interesting issue with no clear right or wrong. --regentspark (comment) 11:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes Wikipedia editors lead and brave men hesitate to follow. A highly political article title that makes Burma a walk in the park is Liancourt Rocks and there last time we had a page move (May 2007) national newspapers took it a a matter of national honour that Wikipedia came to the "right" decision and asked their readers to weigh in (its entry in WP:LAME would be funny if it were not true). Microsoft stepped into the tar pit as did the Library of Congress when they followed out lead in December 2007 and then failed to implement it in July 2008 after lots of political pressure saying that they would not make the change until the US Board of Geographic Names made the change. When US Board of Geographic Names made the change the following month, they were issued with a presidential order to change it back (August 2008)! -- PBS (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

India Page Final Dem Img Rotation Vote

There is currently a vote going on to decide the final images to be selected in the Demographics Image Rotation. Some new images were added to the pool. Please carefully see the new proposals and vote for your favorite images that best represent the people of India.

Please vote here.

Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. --regentspark (comment) 20:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at MangoWong's talk page.
Message added 00:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MW ℳ 00:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

The Signpost: 7 November2011

William Wallace article

Perhaps you would like to help me edit his ancestry It is believed that William Wallace`s ancestor Richard wallace a (norman-breton kinght) came to scotland inthe 1130s in the sevice of walter Fitzalan who had been apointed stewart by King David I and settledin ayrshire. There are sevral ayrshire Wallace seals attached to the Ragman Rolls but none of theme display a lion(the traditional arms asociated with Wallace)used are a Saltire,cross paty and a fleur de lys William Wallace was prbably descended from one of Richard`s sons which married into local scottish land ownig familis Hence Wallace and his scoto-norman ancestors would hane been well acqueinted with Gailic,French,Latin,Greek,and possibly an early form of Scots.[1] plase help me thanks again!!! --Highlandjacobite (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Royalty

Hi there: Could you please delete Mukarram Jah and then move Prince Mukarram Jah to Mukarram Jah. I managed to get through the first seven in User:Fowler&fowler/Princely states related pages that might need monitoring, but I need your help for Mr. 8. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. --regentspark (comment) 21:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. If you have the time, could you go through some of the others in that list. I've cleaned up to Mr. 9, but have a splitting headache now. No big deal though if you don't. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
A royal title is not an honourific. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for preventing "malicious" deletions on the page for next 10 days! KevinBraun (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

WP India in the Signpost

Haven't heard from you in a while. FYI, WikiProject Report is covering WikiProject India to coincide with WikiConference India next month. If you'd like to take part in the interview, Belugaboy has posted some interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. I'll definitely participate - sometime this weekend. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 12:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I need you to answer those final questions, as the story is scheduled to run next week. Thanks! Belugaboycup of tea? 13:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. But can't you get someone else to chip in as well? Someone, perhaps AshLin or Sodabottle, who will be at the conference. --regentspark (comment) 13:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I've gotten AshLin to chip in also, but if you could just answer question 5 we can put it through for publication. Belugaboycup of tea? 13:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Answered. Thanks for all your effort! --regentspark (comment) 16:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Keep up the good work! Belugaboycup of tea? 13:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for helping out with the Signpost report "Having a Conference with WikiProject India", it was a overall good report. Regards, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 14:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, about Achal Prabhala's article

Hello, I just wanted to tell you that I had added a link and the reference where you felt that the information was missing. I did not want to remove the tag myself since the topic is really burning hot right now! Sincerely, Capsot (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I've removed it. Didn't think to look in the notes section :) --regentspark (comment) 15:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, have a nice day and week! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I am sure you would take a look there anyway but well I just wanted to tell you I added a few things you will probably feel more proper to "tone down" or rearrange. Bye. Claudi/Capsot (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. Article looks pretty good to me. Initially I thought it delete worthy but I think it holds up well now. Good work collecting the references! --regentspark (comment) 22:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
And a real good work fixing it, thanks! Have a good night! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to bother again... I had not paid much attention but you removed the mentions to his articles (in Outlook for instance) and in my opinion his work as a writer has lost way too much after this removal especially since I have just found a short while ago that he also wrote for Bidoun: [1] (and probably in many other magazines that I still haven't found or are not available on Internet... Thanks and sorry for this new intrusion. Take care, Claudi/Capsot (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC). PD: Sorry, an additional info, he also appears to have coauthored: The best of Quest [2] but well I will add it myself in the biography. Bye now!
No worries. Looks fine to me. I removed a reference to a workshop (not sure if you or someone else added it) but the rest looks good. Interesting person, btw. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Rahmat Ali

I'm curious, why do you think Choudhury is an honorific here? As far as I know, his full name included Choudhury which is likely to be his family name. (some people use it at the start of name, some use it at the end, but it's essentially a family name). --Ragib (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it a title? According to (the unreliable wikipedia!) Chaudhary is one and academic literature tends to not use the Choudhury in front of his name (cf. Rahmat Ali: A Biography by Kursheed Kamal Aziz). (Also, I notice that the article about Charan Singh doesn't use Chowdhury either.) --regentspark (comment) 13:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I see it's been moved back, so this is moot anyway. I'll figure out whether it's worth putting in a move request (after doing some research). --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not a title at present times. It used to be one during the Mughal era. A lot of titles from those days got converted to family names over the centuries. For example, "Chakladar", "Talukdar" etc. used to mean the official in charge of a Chakla or a Taluk (names of subdivisions during Mughal era). However, these are commonly used family names these days.
I do have to admit that I'm not 100% sure in case of Rahmat Ali. I just read the original text of his 1933 pamphlet ("Now or Never") that advocated establishment of Pakistan. He does use the name Chaudhury, but in a rather strange manner, writing Rahmat Ali (Chaudhury). --Ragib (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My oppose

This is probably hideously inappropriate, I just had to say, that's the politest oppose ever. Thank you. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

India i.e Bharat

According to the Constitution of India

India, also known as Bharat, is a Union of States.It is a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic with a parliamentary system of government. The Republic is governed in terms of the Constitution of India which was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26th November 1949 and came into force on 26th January 1950.

So what's the problem of writing India i.e Bharat on wikipedia ? sujit_km 14:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujit900 (talk • contribs)

Check the archives on Talk:India. The wording in the lead is based on a consensus reached there. --regentspark (comment) 14:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I only checked the messages now, I don't understand though how these edits are major disruptions, although I see your point and if changed again I wouldn't change them.

Apologies— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexTheGrand (talk • contribs) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Read WP:BRD. If you find your edits being reverted, it is better to open a discussion on the talk page. Wikipedia works a lot by WP:CONSENSUS, which can appear to be a tediously long process at times but you'll find that it can be rewarding if you hand around here. --regentspark (comment) 15:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Thank you

Thanks a lot for working so hard on Kolkata. You eliminated all the dead links! wow. Thank you. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. With your work and that of Amartyabag it has a good shot at retaining featured status. Good luck! --regentspark (comment) 14:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over USB article naming

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "USB". Thank you. --Crispmuncher (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I don't really remember this but will do some research and respond, probably tomorrow. --regentspark (comment) 21:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
(Addendum) Looks like this was a move discussion I closed way back in June. I'm not really sure what I can add to this discussion but, noting that I am singled out as the top 'bad guy' in your DR statement :) , I'll try to gather the threads together and make a comment. --regentspark (comment) 21:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi. I've unburdened myself at the WP:DRN thread already and don't want to extend that discussion any further. I just wanted to add a few words to you personally. First, I want to emphasize that I am sure you acted in good faith, and I don't see any purpose in starting a WP:ANI discussion over what I hope was an isolated mistake. Second, I realize the discussion is stale; I didn't even notice your closure of the discussion until some time had gone by, and since (as I said) it was the process that bothered me, not the outcome, I didn't see any benefit in belaboring the issue. I only spouted off at WP:DRN because I was notified of the discussion on my talk page. But, to get to my point, I think you misapplied the "strongest arguments" criteria here by imposing your own personal opinion. To illustrate, suppose we were discussing whether Wikipedians should drive on the right or the left side of the road. After some discussion, an editor comes along and closes it, saying "I see that 5 people want to drive on the left and 2 want to drive on the right, but I personally like to drive on the right, therefore the arguments for driving on the right are stronger." That's an obviously circular argument. And it's certainly not a "consensus" by any reasonable definition of that word. But that's essentially what you did (although less explicitly) in closing the USB move discussion. Now, in the further discussion after the move was closed, there was a lot more information brought forward, and I think one could reasonably argue based on that further discussion that the move was correct after all. I see no need to reopen the move discussion at this point (someone else probably does...), but I just think you closed the discussion prematurely and were not justified in doing so based on the discussion that had taken place up to that point. Sorry for the long message, but I wanted to explain my concern and hope that there are no hard feelings. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for the note. I disagree with you (of course) because I didn't say anything remotely similar to "I personally like to drive on the right, therefore the arguments for driving on the right are stronger". In fact, I care so little about the article title that I'm surprised that 'personal opinion' is being raised so often here. I have no personal opinion on this darned thing! (For the record, I'm happy driving on either side of the road.) --regentspark (comment) 16:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

V

Hi, I've compiled some thoughts on the WP:V RfC and a draft close at User:HJ/V. If you could take a look and add your thoughts ro comments, I'd be grateful. It would be nice, if we can manage it, to get the RfC closed today. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not read anything you've written till after I've finished. I'm almost done with the reading and will compile my notes into some semblance of coherence tonight and then update your draft. --regentspark (comment) 22:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
That's very sensible. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll finish it up in the morning (since the Worm is not going to turn before then anyway!). --regentspark (comment) 03:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I made the mistake of reading HJs. I'm currently of a different opinion, but have more to read. Think we might need to have a bit of a discussion about this... WormTT · (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen HJ's yet. Will finish up mine User:RegentsPark/Verifiability RfC and then take a look. --regentspark (comment) 14:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful. Have made a start on mine User:WormTT/V too. WormTT · (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, it looks like we've all come to a similar conclusion here, here and here. Writing it up is the next step and since this was different to the last close we should probably make mention of it. WormTT · (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Diwali

Thanks for replying to this; I’ve left a (belated!) comment there. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama

Hello. I added the photo since Vasco da Gama was oficially the first European to find a sea route to India and to set foot there. He made commerce between Europe and the East possible. So i think it is worth mentioning it in India's history section. If you have any suggestions, i will appreciate them. User:Lacobrigo (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe there were other Europeans who set foot in India prior to the arrival of Vasco da Gama. Alexander of Macedonia, for example, leaps to mind as a rather obvious example. Regardless, images to the India article are only added by consensus so you should take this up on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 00:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

RfC about caste issue at WT:INB

I've never nominated something at RfC before and am uncertain whether now is the time to open my account with regard to the caste relevance issue being discussed at WT:INB. We do seem to be going round in circles a bit but I am conscious that there are potential contributors who may be away from Wikipedia at present. Do you think that RfC is the route, or could WP:BLPN somehow provide a better perspective/more viewpoints? - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd just wait and see if some new opinions come in? No hurry, imo. --regentspark (comment) 18:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
In that discussion you are saying everything that I have said previously, which at least makes me think that I am not completely stupid. That includes your recent comment about mentioning religious beliefs and the accompanying point that it is not yet the subject being discussed. As far as AK goes, I am taking a break from replying to them for a few hours or perhaps even days. If they bring up some new point then that is great and I'll look at it ,,, but right now I am getting a bit frustrated with the repetitious nature of their comments and it is probably best for me to avoid them because otherwise I, too, will be just repeating myself. My tolerance levels are probably not as great as yours ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Merging South Asia and Indian Subcontinent

The [merger discussion] is getting nowhere due to lack of participation. Since you had shown interest in the past, will you take a look at the discussion? Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Responded. Thanks for the note. Hope you're doing well and a Happy New Year to you. --regentspark (comment) 16:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Revival of COTM

Hi,

You may be aware that Collaboration of the Month has been revived by members of WP: India. For January 2012 there are 2 articles - Indian COTM - [[Premchand and Indian COTM for GA - Mahatma Gandhi. As a senior and respected editor you are requested to partake in this activity. Cheers, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 14:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm trying to reduce the number of time sinks in my life so not sure if I can help out! (Happy New Year!) --regentspark (comment) 16:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Ahalya FAC

I've suggested your name as a possible reviewer at the Ahalya FAC. I'm traveling and flat out of time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No can do. I'm trying to cut wikipedia out of my life, or at least keep it on the low burner. :) Enjoy your travels. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Ahalya failed the FAC, but the process of improvement continues. Asking for help improving the article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ahalya/archive2, on the recommendation of both Fowler&fowler and SandyGeorgia. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I can help. Am much pressed for time these days and wikipedia can be a huge distraction. I'll try to drive by and comment but really need to put some effort into the Kolkata article when I have the time. --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I can wait till Kolkata is rescued. Let me see if I can do something for Kolkata too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Kolkata

Just to remind that, you stated that you will help in finding out offline references for Kolkata during its FAR. It is currently in FARC. I am trying to address to most of the issues. It would be of great help, if you can find time to add those references. Amartyabag TALK2ME 10:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Hopefully something over this week. --regentspark (comment) 13:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Kindly check the Kolkata FAR for my comments on the footnotes. Thanks in advance. Amartyabag TALK2ME 02:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

China archive

Hi RP. People are finding it difficult to find the archive of the China move discussion. I note you made this edit in which the archive was placed in the talkpage archives of Chinese civilization. Was this a mistake? If not, what is the thinking behind it? SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No idea what I was thinking at that time. If you could fix it, that'll be great. --regentspark (comment) 13:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. I can see why it happened: Chinese civilization was involved in the merge/rename discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Now I remember. Thanks for taking care of this! --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

mentorship

Hi, I'd like to help find a mentor for User:SergeWoodzing, who you've probably seen around ANI a number of times because of his perennial conflict with User:Pieter Kuiper. He's an older editor focused mostly on historical Swedish royalty, who has some problems with sourcing and with user interaction. There is a currently active ANI thread related to this (permalink) here. SergeWoodzing expressed willingness to work with a mentor in an earlier ANI,[3] but nothing came of it at that time. Since there have been a few other incidents since then, I thought I would ask around, and User:SilkTork suggested a few names including yours.[4] Do you have any interest in working with SergeWoodzing? If yes, I can leave him a note since I had some earlier interaction with him in that old ANI that I linked.

I think one of the mentor's main tasks would be to act as an intermediary between SergeWoodzing and Pieter Kuiper. Pieter Kuiper is in my opinion a more accurate editor than SergeWoodzing currently is, and so his corrections to SergeWoodzing's edits are worth having, but he's been abrasive enough to cause SergeWoodzing considerable distress, to the point that several editors including me found ourselves supporting SW's request for an interaction ban between the two of them (the ban never got formally enacted) even though SW's editing has indeed been problematic. I don't think the problem as extensive as (say) PHG's was, but it's that sort of situation in miniature.

Thanks and let me know of whatever suggestions you might have,

67.122.210.96 (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but RL has intruded in a big way and I have almost no time for wikipedia these days. --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks anyway, and best wishes for RL. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

South Tibet dispute

Hi Regentspark, I responded to your requested move and comment on Talk:South Tibet dispute#Requested move and requested your explanation of your actions. Since you haven't replied, I'm reposting my request below in case you're not watching that page closely. As you can see, I'm preparing to file a formal complaint against your actions, but want to give you a chance to explain yourself and/or remedy the situation before doing so. Please respond at the article talk page. Thanks!

Comment: Regentspark, you're dodging the the main issue here: this article was originally located at South Tibet, about the disputed territory rather than the dispute itself, until you unilaterally moved it to Arunachal Pradesh dispute and redirected South Tibet to Arunachal Pradesh without any discussion, knowing well that such actions cannot be undone by editors without administrator privileges. This is despite the fact that a similar proposal was officially rejected and a more recent discussion to do the same was again rejected. And you just went ahead and made the move and redirection anyway in a blatant violation of Wikipedia policies, showing tremendous disrespect of your fellow Wikipedians. As an administrator you are undoubtedly aware of the policies you were violating. I urge you to provide us a satisfactory explanation of your actions, and to remedy the situation by moving the article back to its original location at South Tibet. If no satisfactory steps are taken, I would have no choice but to file an official complaint against you on WP:ANI.

--Zanhe (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The closing administrator on the deletion discussion observed that the article was kept so that a discussion regarding a potential merge with Arunachal Pradesh proceed. So your characterization of an "official rejection" is misleading. There has been "no blatant violation" of Wikipedia's policies. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 22:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, so you're saying administrators can just arbitrarily delete/move/redirect controversial articles around to advance their personal agendas without gaining consensus first? Sorry but I'm not convinced. And how about this discussion then? --Zanhe (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing arbitrary about their action. They have amply discussed the move in the spirit of bold, revert, discuss cycle, and this is not an instance where administrative tools were involved. So I would ask you to stop characterizing it as such. Wikipedia is not going to disappear in a day, so cut down the hand-wringing and attend to discussions on talk pages. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Zanhe, I apologize that I haven't had the time to follow up on your comments at South Tibet (I will try to take a look over the next couple of days). However, and please forgive me for this, I find your complaint above a little bizarre. As far as I can see, I moved a page, you moved it back, and so I filed a formal move request to determine consensus. If you find any of these actions objectionable then, and I'm sorry I have to say this, you might want to consider whether you are well suited for a collaborative venture such as wikipedia. Good luck with your official complaint. Regards, --regentspark (comment) 23:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for making your position clear. To set the record straight, you moved the page and edited the South Tibet redirection, making it irreversible without administrator intervention. So I was unable to move it back. Regards, --Zanhe (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh. I see what you mean now. Note that you can always ask an admin to move a page for you (I would have probably done it if you had asked, but WP:RM is the right place for those sort of requests). --regentspark (comment) 13:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, now I'm asking you to move it back as you're the person most suitable for the task. Nobody is going to complain when you undo your own move. I've explained in great detail on the article talk page why it's a bad idea to redirect South Tibet to Arunachal Pradesh. In short, China claims 65,000 km2 of territory as South Tibet, while Arunachal is 83,743 km2, 30% bigger. Redirecting South Tibet to AP only helps to perpetuate the widely held misconception the entire AP is being disputed. I do realize that the old South Tibet article is far from perfect, but it's still better than the redirect.
BTW, now that I've done the bulk of the research, I'll make it my next task to rewrite that article once you move it back. And I'd rather spend most of my time writing well-sourced content which is something of a specialty for me, than endlessly arguing the points on either the talk page or the ANI. Regards, --Zanhe (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
As most editors involved seem to favor a disambiguation page for "South Tibet", another page move appears to be unnecessary.--Pseudois (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Zanhe, at this point, it is best to let the move request resolve itself. Whatever consensus comes out of it will be more stable in the long run. --regentspark (comment) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That's very convenient for you to say, now that you've made your change a fait accompli, shifting the burden of proof to the other side on this clearly controversial subject. So why didn't you make a move request to gauge consensus BEFORE you moved the article the first time? --Zanhe (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Like I say above, I moved the article, you moved it, and I filed a move request. This is about as normal a process on wikipedia as it gets. If you had come to me with a request to move it back to South Tibet, explaining that you can't do it yourself because it requires admin bits, I'd, most likely have done so and then filed a move request, but, with an ongoing discussion, it is too late for that. (To be honest, I thought you'd moved it back to the original title which is why your original post seemed bizarre to me.) The impression I get is that you think the article is not at your "right" title, you're upset about that, and you somehow feel "wronged". That's not a healthy way to edit on wikipedia because, rightly or wrongly, it makes it look as if you care less about finding an appropriate title and more about pushing your own version of the title. I looked at the talk page and it seems to me that the process is proceeding in a constructive way and I urge you to join and be a part of that discussion rather than obsessing about 'burdens of proof', 'convenience', uppercase befores, or 'fait accompli'. Have some faith in other editors. It is when you start seeing conspiracies everywhere that wikipedia becomes an inhospitable place and, trust me, you don't want to go down that road. Regards, --regentspark (comment) 18:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

See India talk page

See India talk page. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear RegentsPark,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Sincerely,


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Stirling bridge and falkirk 1297-98 ISBN 978-1-84176-510-5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark/Archive_11&oldid=1142550765"