Jump to content

User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute

As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Join the Community!

Do consider joining the WikiProject India Mailing List (https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-en) (if not already done) which provides communication for the community.

For other lists which may be of interest to you, see http://wiki.wikimedia.in/Mailing_Lists.

AshLin (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

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 "India". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk • contribs) 04:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Canvassing tag query

This user never edited this article [1], appeared on this ANI discussion out of nowhere from semi idle [2], and there were previous reports to admins about clear canvassing which I wont refer to because of my interaction ban with an involved user. Is that a reason enough to believe that this editor could not have reached this article by himself? --lTopGunl (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The user has commented on your talk page as well as DarknessShine's talk pages and it is not unlikely that they arrived at both the ANI discussion as well as the Afghanistan discussions that way. I, for example, have never edited the article either but do have your talk page on my watch list. Always, in my opinion, better to AGF. --regentspark (comment) 12:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Your clarification is completely reasonable, the reason for the tag was that there have been a series of related jump ins like this by this user, but I'll not escalate on this one. After all the closer is going to see the consensus and not the 'votes'. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Better this way. But you should file an SPI on those SPIs on the pakistan talk page. Really suspicious (though the consensus there seems quite clear and the sock activity won't change it). --regentspark (comment) 18:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Another query

I requested closure of an RFC (before the closure was addressed, the RFC was restarted - I added remarks about that too at [3])... now I have an interaction ban so you can read those remarks on the given link, the RFC was closed accordingly by an admin. This uninvolved admin closure (requested by me) was reverted by the user I have interaction ban with. [4] Is this an indirect ban violation or just a bad revert of a formal closure? How am I to go about this if it is the latter case? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing my nominations (regardless of the achieved consensus) isn't a violation of ban? [5]... can I do the opposite too? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The query has been reported to ANI... eh. [6] --lTopGunl (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the un-closure. Will drop a note on DarknessShines talk page. --regentspark (comment) 13:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. There's a clarification discussion open at ANI now to put these types of issues in black and white in regards to the ban, including if I could ask such a question at this page. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Commented there as well. --regentspark (comment) 13:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC closure

You should not have closed that RFC. It is an entirely different proposal to the last one as it deals with article layout and not content. And how long does one have to wait till an RFC is not "pointy"? Please self revert your unilateral closure of a valid RFC, or point me to the policy which says that I may not follow the normal steps of the dispute resolution process. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to revert Jcai's reopening of the RfC. When does an RfC become pointy? When the initiator has a battling history with other editors on the same article. I think you should be careful you don't end up with a Pakistan related articles topic ban but it's entirely your call. --regentspark (comment) 16:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Well you do not have to revert him, it has already been done. My question was, what is a reasonable amount of time before I could post an RFC so it would no longer be "pointy" I am not trying to be a pain here, but the new RFC was about how the article ought to be laid out, not about the content from the previous one. Discussion on content would have begun after a consensus was reached on weather or not certain things should have their own sections. I hope I am being a little clearer this time around. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Given your situation with TopGun, I'm not sure if you should probably have let the earlier RfC run its course and make your change suggestions there. Either way, TopGun should not have reverted JCai. --regentspark (comment) 17:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The other one had run it's course, and only two involved editors had commented, the other chap did not understand the issue . It seemed sensible to me to garner a consensus on article layout, then work on the content. I will not be commenting on the RFC, I intended to let it run without trying to argue the details. But if it is closed again I will wait a month before posting another, is that enough time? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
And now that it has again been closed[7] how long do I need to wait? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
If I were in your shoes, I'd just move on to other articles and not bother with another RfC. Plenty of other stuff to work on. --regentspark (comment) 20:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your incredibly helpful response, and I must say you did a wonderful job of answering my questions. A month it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Tag & Assess

May we count on your admirable support in this Tag & Assess too? AshLin (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to help but I really don't have the time. Sorry! (Will follow the progress though and might join later.)--regentspark (comment) 16:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. I think we should request people to choose their articles themselves rather than bother with static pages, what say? AshLin (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that is that people may end up choosing the same articles and it adds to assessment time (you have to figure out which articles are interesting). But, it'll be more interesting for the editors. So that's the tradeoff. No harm in giving it a try :) --regentspark (comment) 18:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, an already assessed article can easily be seen by them if the article is updated. I find people have already begun updating articles of interest to them. A coordinator of Delhi March meetup has promised to ask Delhi members to assess the 600 odd articles pertaining to WikiProject Delhi. Redtigerxyz, Noopur28, etc have all chosen categories & begun categorising. So I think we'll dump the worklists. Only thing is that we will have to verify (count) the assessments before giving awards. On another tone, I have added a new category of Medals for junior editors (below 3000 edits). That ought to enthuse a few of them. Response is far better than what I expected & already the articles are down to 17,500! AshLin (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
That's great. Perhaps we could replace the worklist with a category list. Not sure how easy or hard that would be. That way an editor can pick a category of interest and work through it. What do you think? --regentspark (comment) 20:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. But will implement tomorrow - tired now. Even the instructions are incomplete :(. The good news is we are down over 700 articles in one and a half day. From 18262 to 17511. AshLin (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan

As you're involved and can't take admin action against JCAla, I guess I can safely tell you that he's violated 3RR without being accused of adminshopping. I think an AN3 is due since I'm being expected here for a 1RR - but if I file one for this disruption now, will I be stereotyped to WP:BATTLE?

[8] [9] [10] [11]

Warned: [12].

Reverts to 3 different editors and then 3 editors opposing on talk. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant

Hi RegentsPark, User:Nashtam has been creating many usernames, i.e., sockpuppeting and been repeatedly removing all the verified sources almost an entire section. I already raised a SPI and it has been confirmed by CheckUser. Please see [[13]]. Today i strongly suspect User:Nashtam has created another user User:Nirmayam and added messages to the article's talk page like User:Nirmayam is supporting User:Nashtam itself. Hence i have reported to the SPI about the creation of User:Nirmayam. Sathishmls (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'll watch the page but keep me posted if you see any further sock activity. --regentspark (comment) 17:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi RegentsPark, I have responded on Talk:Koodankulam_Nuclear_Power_Plant yesterday. As per advice from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Rules_in_banning_users_because_of_biased_edits_or_vandalising, I have also raised this issue on the Wikipedia_talk:INB and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Please advice on how to take it forward from here. Thanks for your help in resolving this matter. Nashtam (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Hi RegentsPark, Today, I got another "last warning" for "vandalisation" on the KKNPP article that we have been waiting to discuss on the talk page. At least I now have support from another user AMuraliKumar. I don't know, but it seems strange to me if non-Indian users decide this matter that is going to be so critical for the future of Indian development. Nashtam (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied on the article talk page. --regentspark (comment) 14:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Source

You added this content as discussed here and asked for someone to add the reliable source we had been speaking about on the talk. I subsequently added the source. The source says:

The number of dead in Bangladesh in 1971 was almost certainly well into seven figures. It was one of the worst genocides of the World War II era, outstripping Rwanda (800,000 killed) and probably surpassing even Indonesia (1 million to 1.5 million killed in 1965-66). As R.J. Rummel writes,
"The human death toll over only 267 days was incredible. Just to give for five out of the eighteen districts some incomplete statistics published in Bangladesh newspapers or by an Inquiry Committee, the Pakistani army killed 100,000 Bengalis in Dacca, 150,000 in Khulna, 75,000 in Jessore, 95,000 in Comilla, and 100,000 in Chittagong. For eighteen districts the total is 1,247,000 killed. This was an incomplete toll, and to this day no one really knows the final toll. Some estimates of the democide [Rummel's "death by government"] are much lower -- one is of 300,000 dead -- but most range from 1 million to 3 million. ... The Pakistani army and allied paramilitary groups killed about one out of every sixty-one people in Pakistan overall; one out of every twenty-five Bengalis, Hindus, and others in East Pakistan. If the rate of killing for all of Pakistan is annualized over the years the Yahya martial law regime was in power (March 1969 to December 1971), then this one regime was more lethal than that of the Soviet Union, China under the communists, or Japan under the military (even through World War II)." (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 331.)

Now TopGun has removed by whom it was done (although the sources clearly identify by whom it was done). What's your opinion? JCAla (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I like TopGun's version better. Concise and to the point. It is very clear who was responsible for the civilian deaths and there is no sense in thrusting things down the reader's throat. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
No, the civilians were deliberately and systematically killed in a genocide. Saying, generally 1-3 million people were killed would mispresent the sources. JCAla (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal at ANI

Hello! I have a query related to your proposal at ANI regarding Topic ban for two users. What about article that are included in both India and Pakistan domains? Probably your clarification there can help me or anyone else to share our thoughts. Regards --SMS Talk 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Under my proposal, neither TopGun nor DS can edit articles that are under both India as well as Pakistan. Plenty of other articles for them to work on and plenty of other editors who can work on the overlap. I think this is the only way we can keep these editors from being given long term blocks. --regentspark (comment) 17:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest

Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

ssriram_mt (talk) & AshLin (talk) (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per request on Wikipedia:Bot requests. The Helpful Bot 01:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

Pakistan ce

Hey, read your comments on Pakistan FAC. Yes the article needs ce, so you already expressed willingness so just thought to properly request you to take up its copyedit whenever you get time. Your edits there have been very helpful. September88 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd really like to see the article get Featured status. It is almost there but needs that little extra push to get it across. I wonder if the guild of copy editors could help? --regentspark (comment) 03:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll get the request there as well, but in my personal experience that section isn't very active.September88 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Abuse

You were witness to an "unconditional apology" by Fowler, he has not mended his ways, see edit summary "usual garbage edits". This is a request from an editor to an admin to intervene. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm involved here so you'd better take this elsewhere. Meanwhile, I see you've started a discussion on the talk page, so let's just see where that goes. The key here is to show that the sources you cite are (a) supporting your statement, (b) have solid credentials, (c) are not spouting a fringe view, and (d) the view they are supporting is significant enough to be included in a summary article. --regentspark (comment) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
(1) My issue isn't a "content dispute" which would make you involved, it is about abuse. (2)I have presented the case the one who has deleted should provide evidence that the view is FRINGE, or un-reliable, or UNDUE. I leave it to you to contest. Failing which the "dispute" description is to be brought back. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. You need to show that the sources you provide are scholarly enough for inclusion and that the theory itself is mainstream enough to be mentioned here. Even if the theory were not a fringe one, you would still need to demonstrate that it is important enough for inclusion in the India article and why it could not merely be covered in the migration theory sub article. I think fowler has amply demonstrated that the migration theory remains the mainstream view. The mere presence of sources is insufficient for inclusion (if that were the case, every article would be infinitely long). --regentspark (comment) 19:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
See relevant section on talk page of India for details of sources. The theory is disputed, the acknowledgement of the dispute has scholarly consensus. We are not talking about whether Aryan migration actually took place or not, that is not my issue at the moment, the issue is whether the Aryan migration fairy tale, sorry theory is disputed or not, the evidence that I have presented supports the statement, The traditional but disputed Aryan migration theory. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Why is it important to mention the dispute? I ask why is it important to mention a disputed theory? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I think your 'fairy tale' comment above clearly tells where you're coming from. Let's just keep this discussion on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 20:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure I came here for the abuse report, you started the content discussion here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Yes, it was difficult task to save the article. It feels nice to have saved it in the FAR. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This shows the effort the two of you put in. Now all I have to do is to figure out how to give barnstars! --regentspark (comment) 18:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Animesh

I did not really understand why you would call me a "generally reasonable editor". But i always take all such things as compliments rather than criticism. :) If you meant it as some critisim, you might want to explain more. I frankly assume its a compliment. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a compliment! What I'm saying is that we may not always agree on things but I have no doubt that anything you say will be in good faith and will be honestly said. I understand where you're coming from in your defense of YK, but the fact is the he has a single minded agenda here, he's willing to twist things to push that agenda, and I particularly dislike his calculated Indians vs. others approach. I agree with some things (Gandhi rather than Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and am ok with Ganga over Ganges) but his methodology is bad for the encyclopedia. In my opinion, that is. --regentspark (comment) 18:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks then! I see your comments here and there and also remember our discussion on mentioning caste. But now that you mentioned Ganga i found out this old chat of ours. I was basically wondering why you would call me reasonable when we havent interacted much. Thats solved now. :) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin wanted

Some IP 125.19.69.2 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly vandalising Manoj Kumar and reverting my reversions. Can you do something? Should you do something? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the IP has been warned and has stopped. That was vandalism so the best thing to do is to warn the user a couple of times, make sure you give a last warning, and then report it to WP:AIV. --regentspark (comment) 21:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello RegentsPark. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Tag

A globalize tag without any discussion has been added at the top of the Pakistan article, just after you removed the POV tag. Refer to my comment at the end of here. I'm not going to revert, lest I get accused of hounding or something equivalent of that again. I'd appreciate if you intervene. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Epic India

When you moved it did you forget to keep redirect or was it purposely removed? Someone created it now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epic_India&redirect=no §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed it purposely because I don't think Epic India is the right term. What do you think? Should we keep the redirect or get to delete it? --regentspark (comment) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you perhaps should've proposed a page move instead of just moved it. While Wikipedia encourages boldness, this drastic of a title change could prove controversial, and is worthy of discussion. The title you moved it to is not one (I think, I don't know for sure) that many English speakers would know. See WP:Use English. If I were you, I would move the page back to Epic India, request move protection, and then propose a move, just to get a sense of the community's opinion. Paris1127 (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Paris1127, the article was at the wrong title since Epic India has nothing to do with Bharata Khanda. See the discussion here. --regentspark (comment) 13:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you (or someone else) should have started a discussion on the talk page or requested a move. "Epic India" may not be entirely accurate, but its meaning is somewhat clearer to those who know little about the subject and do not understand Hindi (or Sanskrit). Perhaps the article should be renamed "Vedic India"? That would keep the article in line with WP:EN... By the way, what does Bharata Khanda mean in English? Paris1127 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
We'll figure out a name (or whether the article should be sent to AfD). Meanwhile, it is better to have an obscure name than to have an incorrect one. --regentspark (comment) 14:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Paris1127 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think you'll make a great admin! --regentspark (comment) 16:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Essel World

Hi,

I saw your name on the list of editors involved in "undeletion". I created the article Essel World. When I created it, the article had citations to independent sources but then other editors came along and started adding stuff that made it look like a advertisement. Hence it was speedily deleted last weekend on account of "Blatant Advertising". Could you restore it back to my userarea? I would like to work on it to make it better and maybe add some pictures. Essel World was one of India's first amusement parks. It deserves better. Thanks. --Belasd (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it is already userified. I'll put it on my watch list. Good luck! --regentspark (comment) 20:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I was going to leave you a note that it was restored. Thanks anyways! Best, Bela. --Belasd (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
No worries. The current version looks very reasonable to me (assuming the references hold up). You could ask the admin who deleted it to restore it in article space. As far as I can see, it's not promotional and does indicate notability.--regentspark (comment) 21:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Great work removing verbatim and POV content from Balwant Singh Rajoana Mr.weedle (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar! (That article seems to attract strong emotions. I'm trying to keep it open for IP editors but ....) --regentspark (comment) 14:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Request

I have been accused of an IBAN violationhere. As you are an admin who I believe is neutral and who I respect, could you look it over and comment please? Sal has asked that he be given a few weeks off from policing the topic area. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library
Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch.
  • Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227).
  • Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street.
  • Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time)

The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required!

Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Taliban

Hey, first of all, thanks for trying. But you need not find a solution, it would just be appreciated if you simply state your conclusion on what the sources are saying and what should be included into the article. We have come so far in this discussion and we will find no other solution anywhere else. So, I would appreciate if you'd stay for just some time longer. Can you do that? JCAla (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can do that. My primary purpose in getting involved was to see if there could be a workable compromise (that seems to fit what is due and neutral) but that's not going to happen. Though I think my final formulation is probably at the right place for the article, I don't know enough to be definitive about anything. Your RfC idea is probably the best bet at this point and, depending on how the RfC is framed, I might write a neutral comment there. (But, I wouldn't be surprised to see this end up at arbcom.) Meanwhile, I appreciate your efforts to bring sources to the table and, in particular, appreciate your efforts at working with the wording of the text. --regentspark (comment) 17:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you and I appreciate your efforts trying to find a compromise and being open when new sources are being presented. I really tried, but I just think when senior officials admit to something it would be wrong to write they deny. Shall we let it be in there, although obviously wrong, for the sake of compromise? I am thinking how best to frame the RFC. Whenaxis did it well for the Indians in Afghanistan discussion presenting the options at hand for people to choose. JCAla (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Best to be clear and complete in an RfC. Perhaps you could present four options: (1) no mention of the Taliban; (2) The wording that TopGun proposed in one of his last posts (you could also ask him for a specific wording for the RfC); (3) The wording I proposed or some variant of it; (4) Some other more detailed wording if you think that is necessary. Getting TopGun to suggest a wording would, I think, be a good idea (whether he does so or not is his choice). --regentspark (comment) 18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I will do something to that regard, good idea. JCAla (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Done, you might want to have a look. I chose your version from April 14 as option 3 (without the "credible" because of Stg's statement), as it was the one in the middle of the discussion, so I thought it was the best compromise. Best regards, JCAla (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The only flaw in your RfC is that you present the pre-2001 support as definitive. That, it seems to me, is going to be a problem. --regentspark (comment) 14:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems like that was presented as your suggestion [14], but your last suggestion was with complete attribution and denial as I mentioned at the end of the statement. "Middle of the discussion" is an arbitrary point of reference in my opinion. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, sources present it as definite. TopGun has his two suggestions, I chose the other two, one being from you April 14. If TopGun wants to, he can replace his option 2 with the option 3 sentence (+denial). I asked him on his talk yesterday whether he wanted to stand by his version and he had no other suggestion but to include a "no" option. JCAla (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no limit to the number of suggestions a person can give. I've already worked around that in my comment but you need to understand how RFC works. Add them both, there's no downside to that. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Four suggestions is already a lot. I don't think we need three just for you. That is way over the top. You chose option 1, now choose option 2 (either stay with your version or choose one from RP to replace it). I'll stay with RP as option 3 and mine as 4. RP, what do you say?JCAla (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Other than the fact I stated above about limits, RP has pointed out the issue himself. I'll not bother RP further now with a central discussion on his talk page though. I've pointed this out at the correct venues and asked a mediator to check. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's really your (JCAIa and TopGun) choice how the RfC is framed so I'm just going to be a benign observer and see how it all plays out. Like I said above, I think my final formulation is likely the appropriate and due one but I don't know enough to be sure of anything. Que sera sera. --regentspark (comment) 17:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Responding to your messages

I have replied in Talk:Trollhunter#Move to Trolljegeren? and WT:RM#Strange move closure?. No rush to reply; you can reply in your free time. Thank you! George Ho (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

More replies there. --George Ho (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. But I've wasted enough time on this. --regentspark (comment) 12:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lovin' You#Move discussion II

After all talk with you, I would be more concerned if you will be the closer of this discussion. To avoid further conflicts, I would suggest that you improve the consensus rather than close. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. I promise not to close it :) I do think you're getting overly hung up on all this though and, in my experience, getting overly hung up on anything in wikipedia is not healthy. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 16:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Page move request made by sockpuppet

Hey, Regents, hope you're doing well. I know you work on requested page moves. The page move requested at Talk:General_Joseph_Colton#Requested_move_and_edits was made by a now-blocked puppet of indef blocked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JHerbertMunster and should be, I think, speedily closed, but I'm not sure and wouldn't know how to do it if I was. If you could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. How is the DR world? --regentspark (comment) 20:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, we're rockin' along as usual. Steven Zhang and I had made a Wikimania proposal for a DR session, but unless someone changes their mind it's been turned down. There are also a bunch of restructuring proposals, but we're waiting on Steven to release the survey results before they go anywhere. I've started spending more time at DRN than at 3O, but still get in some licks in both places. I know you're doing good work elsewhere, but come back and lend a hand for nostalgia's sake now and then, we'd be glad to have the help. (I also see we also still have some things in common, too.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Never a dull moment on wikipedia :) --regentspark (comment) 20:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
And I see that you are lending a hand, thanks. Did you know that's the 6th time an Occupy dispute has been listed at DRN? — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

Demise of SubQuad

Boom! - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Tag and Assess 2012 - Awards

Indian service award (bronze)
For your efforts in Tag and Assess 2012 - many thanks and wish you achieve many more in the project.

Ssriram mt (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

E-mail
Hello, RegentsPark. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Factseducado (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Sources on Pakistan RFC

Do you want me to remove the sources I cited to you beneath your option statement in the Pakistan RFC? I cited them to make it easier for you to know which sources I am explicitly referring to from among the dozens of sources. JCAla (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is reasonably clear so I don't think you don't need to remove anything. --regentspark (comment) 12:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
You don't think I don't need to remove anything? :) Can you clarify that. Shall I remove or not remove the sources? JCAla (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
You don't need to remove the sources beneath my !vote (it that was your question!). --regentspark (comment) 13:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, that was my question. Regards, JCAla (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Titles on Indian film articles

Hi!
We had this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Titles_of_Indian_film_articles regarding the Indian titles. I guess we have now agreed that the articles should be placed at their Indian titles and keep redirects from the English titles. I tried moving back The Holy Island to Sagar Sangamey. But got this warning; "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text."
Now that you are an admin & who knows what the topic is i thought you could move these pages. Don't want to waste time explaining some random admin at WP:RM. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As of now we have these titles to move:

§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

All done. --regentspark (comment) 12:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar
I am elated to see your excellent contribution and super excellent teamwork in Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi article, which was also the Indian Collaboration of the Month for taking upto GA/FA level under WikiProject India. Your long struggle and hard-work helped the article to achieve Good Article status.
Along with you, the Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Volunteer Barnstar has been awarded to the–
Once again thanks for your contribution!

Note: If you are seeing this barnstar in someone's user page, you can also see this barnstar in GA review page where it was actually posted.BPositive (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

nangparbat

just to let you know this aint me [15] so you can tell your matety DS not to flatter himself I am not stalking him......86.176.93.37 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This IP is almost definitely Nangparbat judging by his Darkness Shines animosity and his recent comments.Ankh.Morpork 18:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Kolkata poop

Hey! That was a very entertaining request,and exemplified with innovative comparisons. Should we really delete it ? :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. The imagery was fascinating :) --regentspark (comment) 22:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Las Vegas move request

I noticed you posted about three hours ago saying you're closing/reading the move request at Talk:Las Vegas. Are you still doing that? -- tariqabjotu 21:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry about that. I wrote up a close and my computer ran out of battery. Will finish it off now. --regentspark (comment) 21:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are polices with usage rather than pedantic accuracy in mind and, if users confabulate the strip and the city, then we should take that into account, point the page to the obvious candidate (the Las Vegas that is in the minds of the reader as several editors have implicitly suggested), and include the strip in that article.

What a succinct summary of the argument[16]. Very well done. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. (I was expecting bric a bracs thrown at me!) --regentspark (comment) 10:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I do wish to object to the close. There are so many reasons why it was so wrong. What new information was added to say they there was consensus to change from the previous no consensus closes? If anything more information was added to support not moving. The move ignores all of the naming and policy guidelines except for WP:COMMONNAME which needs you to establish a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and yet this was not done. The RFC above the discussion, to see if there was a primary topic was not closed, but clearly there is a lack of a clear consensus for a primary topic. The close ignores the fact that in dabing the incoming pages to Las Vegas over several years, only about 5% of the inbound links are for the city. Clearly not a fact that supports the city being the primary topic. Then we have the confusion about politic boundaries and being an arbitrary criteria. Well, the city is a well defined entity with specific boarders and includes within those boarders areas that are not part of the city and not governed by the city. You close seems to have taken those arguments to somehow say that not worrying about boarders means that the primary topic has specific boarders. All in in, a really bad close with no justification to override the previous no consensus closes. Given that there is no review process for RM closes, I guess we need to live with this unless you decide to reconsider. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way Vegaswikian, particularly because I've seen you around and have a lot of respect for your opinions. However, I do think I've read consensus correctly in this case. --regentspark (comment) 12:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, you should be aware of one side affect of your decision and how some editors are planning to implement it. They want to eliminate all links to the Las Vegas Valley. The latest statement is that basically Paradise and Winchester are to be considered in city of Las Vegas. The fact that Las Vegas (disambiguation) still exists is no longer important. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
C'est la vie. Nothing in this world, not even the perfectly rendered consensus decision :), comes without side effects and if we worried too much about them, nothing would ever get done! --regentspark (comment) 18:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
If nothing else, this is impolite. I'm sure you could ask a dozen admins, and they'd all find that RegentsPark made a reasonable judgement of the situation. I knew you wouldn't take this lightly, considering Las Vegas-related articles have been the focus of your work here, but you seriously need to just let this go. You've said your position on this matter several times and, well, your position was in the minority. In fact, it has always been in the minority; it just took until now for it be sufficiently outnumbered to change the status quo. That's just what happens. Honestly, for someone who seems so committed to educating people about the city (or the valley or whatever), you seem to do very little in the way of actually contributing information about the place. Rather than focusing on semantics of article names or changing links all over the place, why don't you do something to improve these articles? -- tariqabjotu 07:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Photo_montages_in_infoboxes_of_caste.2Fcommunity_articles.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--AshLey Msg 15:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Dear RegentsPark, I apologize for being harsh on anyone. But please I am asking because I do not know whom to ask. Could you please tell me what is the solution when there is lots of WP:RS but no consensus. What needs to be done in such cases on the wikipedia? But in anyway I apologize for being harsh. Could you please help me and suggest a solution. Best regards and thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Jammu and Kashmir freedom movement

Hi. Could you please elaborate on what you think does not meet WP:NPOV at Template:Jammu and Kashmir freedom movement? Since AfD is not a stack of !votes, but rather constructive arguments, I would like to see a more in-depth response from you. As you are an admin, I hope you would be able to disregard any WP:COI for a minute and take this issue constructively. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You may also like to review Template:Baloch nationalism or Template:Sindhi nationalism, using the precedents currently being set at this AfD, I suppose they should be nominated all in one go. Mar4d (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought it was pretty clearly non-neutral but have elaborated on the TfD. --regentspark (comment) 14:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I have replied there. Mar4d (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. But I'm pretty much done with this one. It is clearly a non-neutral template (imo) but let the TfD figure this out. --regentspark (comment) 16:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I may be willing to support a rename of the template to Kashmir conflict. That would be neutral and useful. --regentspark (comment) 16:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

IBAN vio

Block for it please, I will point out I was blocked by Magog even though I had reverted a comment immediately. Darkness Shines (talk)

I can't because of the discussion at the tfd. Though it is a definite violation and you can quote me on that. Sorry. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Figured that so postmen on ani, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I've not violated. See my explanation at ANI so that you are aware of previous clarifications that defined the scope of the ban. Also replied on my talk. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Commented at ani. --regentspark (comment) 17:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark/Archive_12&oldid=1138915652"