Jump to content

User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Tag and Assess 2012

Thank You
With the help of contributors like you, the Tag and Assess 2012 project has achieved the planned objectives. Close to 65,000 articles have been assessed and 19,000 articles have been added to the scope of the project. Please do watch out for the post tag and assess activities. Thanks a lot. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection at Chaurasia

Hi, is there any chance that you or one of your stalkers might semi-protect Chaurasia for 24 hours? I have filed a report at SPI. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Done for 24 hours. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I suspect that the socking goes back a long time but I can only deal with the recent ones & hope that the checkuser takes a rummage through the drawer. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Highstakes00

Dear RP, as you are familiar with the SPA (see here) and were the one dealing with it. I am pretty sure the user is a sock of someone we may very well all know. I am not sure of whom though. Indications may be delivered by checking who he has been backing up. The account was earlier created only for the matter of hounding DS. It was blocked for it, as you know. When it was unblocked (because of DS's willingness to give it a second chance) with the condition not to continue that style of editing, the account remained inactive for some weeks.[1] Yesterday it returned, now to follow me around[2][3] and also comment on DS-created articles.[4] Back then Highstakes was supported by now blocked and confirmed sock User:I am Agent X who was using a webproxy to hide the identity of the sock master. WP:Duck may apply here. JCAla (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't really look at anything till tomorrow. Could you check in with Salvio and see what he says? --regentspark (comment) 16:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure. :) JCAla (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi both, I am investigating the issue; for the moment, however, I know too little about it to comment extensively, but I'll say that his most recent actions appear troubling, though, honestly, I'm not sure they have crossed the line into hounding yet. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Did anyone ever check to see if he uses proxies or a web host? And what is the question sal wants to ask. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't wish to be unpleasant, but the fact I want to ask such a question privately should be an indication that I'd rather keep this between the two of us for the moment... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
It does look troubling, particularly stuff like this. Let's see what Sal comes up with but a firm warning is the appropriate action at this time. JCAIa, if you'd like to speculate on whose sock highstakes might be, feel free to email me or Sal. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Old Sockpuppeteer Appears Again?

Do you remember the sockpuppet investigation of Xn4 from over three years ago? Well, I have a feeling that Xn4 has appeared again in the form of Moonraker (talk · contribs). I've provided some evidence on Talk:British_Raj#Is_Moonraker_the_same_as_banned_editor_Xn4.3F. If you can help in any way, it would be great. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I remember the Xn4 case. Let me do some research on this. --regentspark (comment) 14:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Talkback

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at TopGun's talk page.
Message added 19:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

I wish to know if it is an Iban violation to link to the history of an article while stating the article is being blanked, after one part of the Iban had removed a large section of content per wp:sps. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

diffs? --regentspark (comment) 12:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
[5] This is the edit I am referring to. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. It might be or it might not so let it pass. The article doesn't seem to have been blanked by anyone (unless I've missed something) and all TG links to is to the history. He could be commenting on your prod or he could be commenting on vibhijain's AfD. --regentspark (comment) 14:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for looking. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

History of Champagne

So my History of Champagne complaint just gets archived? What's up with that? Kauffner (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It does look like that. I think that Amatulic should not have closed the second RM, particularly after reading the diff that brought him to the page, but the issue is not getting traction at ANI and that is pretty much the way it's going to go. Sorry. --regentspark (comment) 13:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed it's same people as with the Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast issue. Perhaps it is, pour la France. I put the RMs I am working on here, if you are interested. Kauffner (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at TopGun's talk page.
Message added 16:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Re: Mediation Question

Hi RegentsPark, I've responded to your question. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That was quick. I'll take a look in a bit. Thanks for the heads up! --regentspark (comment) 17:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

presenting an editing plan for the future

I had[6], it was roundly ignored. The offer still stands, any article which are the focus on Pakistan I will refrain from editing and confine myself to talk page discussion only. I would still want to edit Afghanistan related articles, specifically the Taliban one which I have done a great deal of work on. I do not see how I can be fairer than this. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, keep that in focus (and you can always bring it up again). But, I do suggest you try to keep a low profile by not arguing each point. Part of the problem with both you as well as TG is the extensive back and forth that goes on. People get tired of seeing it and, after a while, it is easier to kick the editors out than it is to deal with the problem. Not fair but that's wikipedia for you. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree with both of you. Keep that editing plan. That's great and continue your anti-sock and pro-reliable source work. So, RP, what do you say about the alternative proposal as sort of a second chance? JCAla (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's see where consensus ends up. I'd like to keep both TG and DS editing, the content is, imo, worth the headache :) --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Colour me suspicious

Recall that IP I reverted which I thought was a sock and got me in the poop?[7] Well call me a suspicious bugger but[8] Same IP range and ISP appearing on a new article I created strikes me as unusual. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wide range so there's not much you can do even if it's not just coincidence. But keep watching. Meanwhile, I suggest treating the IP as clean unless you get positive evidence to the contrary. (Not call it a sock, not violate your 1RR restriction, etc.) If you do get positive evidence, drop a note on SpacemanSpiff's talk page - I'm not a good sock detector! --regentspark (comment) 02:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
You got it boss. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Léon: The Professional

Hi there. As someone who was involved in the Trollhunter page move discussion, I would appreciate your input on a similar matter. Thanks. Film Fan (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C.

Could you add the Fully protected lock template to the page thanks. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

done. --regentspark (comment) 00:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank You. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Mentioned you at ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion_review.2C_please, where all should hopefully become clear. Although I am expecting to be given short shrift for posting the request there :( - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No one said life was easy :) --regentspark (comment) 13:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am afraid that some people seem to think that consensus requires that everything is formally closed and that non-policy based arguments are valid. And they keep insisting on this despite umpteen others trying to correct that misguided impression. Still, an uninvolved review can do no harm. I am prepared to turn this into a formal RfC if necessary. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's see what happens. Looking at the montage at St Thomas Christians, I can see why you don't like these montages. None of the people in the montage are remotely well known and the entire thing is meaningless in encyclopedic terms. A picture of a typical church would be far more useful.--regentspark (comment) 16:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Ahem. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, it is perhaps no surprise that the request received no useful response. Do you have any thoughts regarding a more suitable noticeboard? I have my doubts regarding WP:DRN being that place, nor is WP:3O appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Let me reread the discussion and get back to you. --regentspark (comment) 11:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I have summarized the discussion reasonably accurate there. Based on my reading of the discussion, I believe the onus for DR is on the editors who want photos in the montage. Any attempt to restore deleted montages without an RfC or a new consensus is going to be disruptive and tendentious. --regentspark (comment) 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for providing a thorough rationale at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hm,or perhaps not quite as throrough as you and I first thought. A lawyer has spotted a loophole. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
And they have also raised it in this thread at WP:AN. They obviously are not going to give up! - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Closing the verifiability RfC

Hello RegentsPark, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the MedCab mediation about the verifiability policy. We're in the process of drafting an RfC on the wording of the lede of the policy page, and we're very nearly ready to put it up live. Before we can do that, though, we need to sort out the issue of who can close it. The mediation participants seem very keen that you should be one of the closers, seeing as you closed the previous RfC on the issue back in December. I know that closing the previous discussion was a lot of work, but would you be willing to do it again? Let me know if you would, or if you would prefer to do things a different way. Also, as I'm not sure that the mediation participants really have the right to decide how the RfC gets closed, I'm just about to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Question about closing the verifiability RfC to get some opinions on this from the community. You're mentioned there, so you might want to comment if you feel so inclined. Also, if you need any clarification on any of this, just ask. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied at the pump. --regentspark (comment) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. Sorry for the miscommunication, but it looks like the previous plan we made at the mediation has fallen through - some of the mediation participants who hadn't previously commented consider you and the other two closers to be involved. So it looks like we'll have to shelve that for now. The latest plan is to find three admins who have had no previous involvement with the process at all, and because of this I've opened up a call for uninvolved admins at the administrators' noticeboard. Thanks for offering to help, though - it is much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Probably better that a completely new set of admins close it anyway. Variety! --regentspark (comment) 15:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

consensus on caste photo montage

Consensus was not reached, Paansing (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. For some people, consensus will never be reached. --regentspark (comment) 20:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Closing the discussion at ANI

There seems to be consensus for your proposal to remove the IBAN on TopGun and Darkness Shines. I think it might be a good time to suggest that they return to the mediation. There is a chance that conditions now support success in dispute resolution. Participants agreed (some time ago, on the mediation talk page) to cease conduct-related interaction outside of the mediation. They haven't agreed to the other condition the mediators suggested at ANI (to cease major edits). The mediators can live with that, provided that article edits are not a source of conflict. Would you be willing to close the discussion at ANI? Sunray (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't really close it since I'm the proposer. But I've put in a note and hopefully some admin will swing by and close it. --regentspark (comment) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The thread got archived but an uninvolved (atleast in the case) admin seconded that. So it's done? --lTopGunl (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I guess so. I made it official in the archive. --regentspark (comment) 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Also need to remove it from Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Continued stalking/houdning

You should see this section [9]. See what I meant at ANI? This will continue if not stopped right now. It happened this way before. I won't consider informing you of the report at Magog's talkpage as canvassing as you were the one who proposed the removal (and also closed it). --lTopGunl (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Template:Kashmir separatist movement

Has been renominated.... for the third time here. Informing people who were part of prior discussions, as courtesy. Mar4d (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Definitely not a good idea. I won't close it since I've !voted in the past but will drop a note there. --regentspark (comment) 16:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. If you are interested, you may want to read ... why pro-Pakistan organisations should be included in the template.. see this. Mar4d (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Also....

For your information; this was created yesterday by the same editor who's nominated this three times over. If the former template should exist, then why continue to complain again and again about the existence of the latter? #justsaying.... double standards should not be used. Mar4d (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, what can I say. Perhaps the current block is needed even if it was made for the wrong reasons. --regentspark (comment) 15:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. A block made for the wrong reasons should never stay, as it is encouraging poor blocks. JCAla (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
In addendum to the above, I believe there were other questionable things which were part of the scene prior to the block; see this thread on factual inaccuracy in a Pakistan-related DYK nominated by DS (which was promoted to the main page and later removed) as well as Talk:Rape in Pakistan. An observer has commented on this overall pattern. There's more to all this than meets the eye, IMO. Mar4d (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Given some recent occurances which included blatant and confirmed source misrepresentations to push a factually incorrect POV by above editor and the repeated restoration of such misrepresentation, this block against DS for missing to attribute a statement is a parody. And the "observer" mentioned by Mar4d above was wrongly informed by Nangparbat.[10] JCAla (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
For the first part of your comment, have WP:NPA for dinner tonight. As for the remainder of your comment, no, he made that statement before NP showed up. Don't try to paint false justifications. Mar4d (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure, be my guest. Afterall commenting on the editor has been all that you have been doing here. For your last sentence, statement made by Kiefer 13:34, 29 June 2012, Nangparbat showing up on Kiefer's talk for the first time 19:35, 28 June 2012. Why are you putting false claims out here? But, anyways, that's it from me. I am sorry RP for you having again to put up with this cross-talking. I am out of this particular discussion here. Have a nice day. JCAla (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
What false claims? Check the timings for a second time before contradicting yourself again. Your personal attacks here are unwarranted and irrelevant. If you've got nothing constructive to say about the ridiculous third-time TfD, stay off. Mar4d (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Please check

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.

Mar4d (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Need your thoughts

Hello, I need your thoughts here. Thank you -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 16:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Also his comments here are questionable. If DS got a one week block for just adding a cited fact, this deserves something, or maybe a lot more that that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Stop trying to inflame me.. my comment was statistical. And stop following me around like you did at the partition of India article after many other places including my first two DYK submissions. And I'll request ansumang to stop canvasing chosen editors and use RFC instead. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
1. This is not canvassing. 2. One one is interested in following you. I you are so confident then stop crying "hounding" and take this to ANI. 3. Let RegentsPark reply. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
See WP:CANVASS. Asking editors to join in content disputes is canvassing. RFC is the proper way. And the user didn't even feel it was appropriate to discuss per BRD instead he reverted and later started posting on other editor's talkpages. I suggest you do not talk to me or about me and let it be among them as it would inflame things. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
If replying to my comments is that tough for you, request an IBAN. That is not a content dispute, rather a concern regarding a user's conduct. And no one is interested to cite an essay to make controversial reverts, and then cry hounding when someone reverts that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
While the administrative issue may persist, the content dispute in Partition of India has been solved, as of now. TopGun and I agreed on a particular version of the sentence (following discussion in talk page of the article). I hope other involved editors will be ok with the version. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess that happens very easily when you focus only on content. Cheers. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. Apologies but I am traveling and had poor internet connectivity that I had to keep for RL work. Looks like the issue resolved itself anyway. Looks like I won't be back for another week, so that's good!--regentspark (comment) 20:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

East India company revival?

Hi, I've come here to ask about the reversal of my edit in East India Company - section - Revival. I've searched the talkpage archives unsuccesfully, could you please elaborate as to why both the companies aren't the same? All the sources I referred to suggested that its the same company name that has been bought, kind of a tricky situation, but i feel it needs mention somewhere on Wikipedia, as its a revival of something of historic significance to both India and UK, and yet many do not know about it. Thanks :) Écrivain (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I can't follow up on this for another week or ten days - apologies for that. The matter has been discussed before and the conclusion was that the two companies are distinct and that the new company is nowhere near notable enough for a comment on the EIC page. I'll drop a note on Fowler's talk page pointing him to this discussion - he may want to comment - though, if I remember correctly, he's traveling as well. --regentspark (comment) 21:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) This issue is dealt with in the discussion threads: Talk:East_India_Company#Sanjive_Mehta and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_44#East_India_Company. Seriously, though, would you expect The Company which constituted the administrative and military arms of the (two-armed) British empire in India from 1757 to 1857—a company under whose direction the railway, telegraph, major canals, the first British-style high schools, and the first universities in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras, were opened in India, and a company which to boot was legally abolished to pave the way for the direct British rule of India—to be miraculously replaced some 150 years later by a unheard of fine foods shop in London? When you have at least half a dozen academic sources, preferably published by Cambridge University Press or Oxford University Press, the gimlet eye of which would surely catch such a remarkable rebirth, you can come back and pose your question again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It was merely a question out of curiosity Fowler&fowler, I was really unaware of all the discussions that had taken place, forgive me. I understood what you're trying to point out. I need no half a dozen sources to pose questions, just a curious thought. Écrivain (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Revdel

Thanks alot, you forgot the actual edit/edit-summary. [11]. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. --regentspark (comment) 13:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ubiquinoid is a sock of banned user:Corticopia

I'm afraid Ubiquinoid (talk · contribs) is a sock of banned editor Corticopia (talk · contribs). He's trying to stay away from his old pages such as Geography of Mexico, but his language is more or less the same. I became suspicious when I realized he was pushing the same nonstandard usage of the verb entail in the Geography of India page as Corticopia had done in the Geography of Mexico page some five years ago. See Talk:Geography of India. There are other language similarities. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You might want to alert User:EdJohnston as he appears to be familiar with the sock farm and can possibly take action based on behavioral evidence. —SpacemanSpiff 11:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Elockid has indeffed him. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
PS And, thank you, Spiff. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Good catch f&f! --regentspark (comment) 15:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Idea

The AfD discussion on the article Pakistan Murdabad was closed as "no consensus" and the closing admin has suggested that a discussion/RfC etc. be started to decide the outcome of the article. I still hold the same views which I had prior to nominating it - Wikipedia is not a dictionary of phrases, and this article serves no constructive purpose. Have you got any comments to spare as far as that is concerned? Following that precedent, there is no reason why there should not be an article on "India Murdabad." I was just wondering, before I go on and add a proposal for it to be merged into Anti-Pakistan sentiment, I've got another idea... would it not be better to create a general article on Pakistan/India social/cultural relations? Something similiar to Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English, which discusses anti-national sentiments in both countries and touches other social and cultural topics which are not otherwise covered in the India–Pakistan relations article which is mostly political. I believe such an article will be useful, constructive, notable and also highly encyclopedic. If that gets created, we can merge contents of the article into there and add a section for similiar anti-India sentiments in Pakistan and then expand to discuss other social subjects. I need a third opinion on this idea. If you agree with it, perhaps we should start a discussion somewhere. Mar4d (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  • (Note-In case someone plans to term this as hounding, I would like to bring it in his/her knowledge that Regents' talk is on my watchlist) As I said before, its not about whether the Indian counterpart should be created or not, its about whether the concerned article, Pakistan Murdabad, should be kept or not. As suggested by Mar4d , something like a relations article can be created, but one should remember that Pakistan Murdabad is also used in Balochistan, and sometimes in Sindh. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You're point being.. ? If that analogy were to be applied, the Indian counterpart is also used in India. How does that justify having an article? Mar4d (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually the article should be deleted. The closure determined it right to propose an RFC for merging in Anti-Pakistan sentiment and re-nominate at AFD if it can't be merged. It is also a good idea to start an article on India Pakistan cultural relations, which will definitely be a good venue to fit in content that can not be a part of India Pakistan wars and conflicts and India-Pakistan relations (which is about state relations mostly). But even after that, this slogan article would still find a more appropriate place as an anti Pakistan sentiment. It opens the pandora's box for creation of India Murdabad, Amreeca Murdabad etc which are more common ones and currently (and repeatedly) in the news too. Better to delete it in my opinion. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Precisely, the article serves no purpose in its existence. Better to get it deleted and merge whatever remains into Anti-Pakistan sentiment, while the proposed cultural relations article can touch on anti-national sentiments in general. Mar4d (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It might make more sense to renominate it for deletion. Looking at sandstein's close, I think he was inclined toward deletion but closed it as no-consensus because of the messy discussion. There doesn't seem to be anything there that actually merits either an article or anything that needs to be merged. Independent of that, mar4d's idea of a cross-cultural article is not a bad one but the main problem with that will be the likelihood that it will be mostly OR. --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I renominated it. Let's see what gives. --regentspark (comment) 14:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rspark I think I am in agreement with this RFC comment slogans such as Pakistan Murdabad, Pakistan Zindabad, Hindustan Zindabad are WP:DICDEF and were wrongly created and expanded using events whenever these slogans were chanted and these articles are now serving as WP:COATRACK for editors pushing Kashmir related POV see Talk:Pakistan Zindabad. Can you also WP:BUNDLE these 2 slogan articles into the AfD ? thanks --DBigXray 15:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
While I agree with the general comment that these slogan based articles are mostly not encyclopedic, some specific slogans may warrant an article so I'm not keen to bundle them. Personally, I think they should all go but let's see what happens with this AfD and then figure out what the next steps should be. --regentspark (comment) 18:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Other articles are separately independent. Bundling does not apply. Last I checked, you had completely different views on the AFD. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah Check again--DBigXray 15:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandtke

Great minds think alike. Seems you beat me to it by a few minutes. I was writing this [12] in the meantime. Just FYI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I was probably too kind. :) --regentspark (comment) 14:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For this. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Move review for Las Vegas (disambiguation)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Las Vegas (disambiguation). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't seen this sort of thing before so I'll take a look. --regentspark (comment) 11:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

HiLo48

Just a heads up, I added his ban to Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community Hot Stop 15:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 18:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

My topic ban

I feel I need to share with you some thoughts I've just posted on my Talk page in response to my topic ban. I'm sure your action is made in good faith, but as I've said below, I cannot see the point, apart from pleasing those who have different views from mine....

LOL. A victory for a kangaroo court. I have no idea what this ban is actually for. I gave up reading that attack thread (I now see that it's many threads) of hatred against me after the first few posts. The very first post accused me of name calling. That's something I don't do. Then I was told I had to keep being nice to someone persistently trying to add a religious perspective to a non-religious topic. Sorry, that's not going to help Wikipedia. Such editors just waste our time. Then I was accused of personal attacks. Again, no, I don't do that. I DO vigorously point out when someone has said something dumb, which is obviously not the same as saying they are dumb. Hell, I say dumb things myself, but I won't admit to being dumb. I was accused of bludgeoning people when I made a proposal to change policy. What I found was that people either didn't understand my proposal, so I felt justified in putting more effort into explaining it, or deliberately chose to misrepresent my position, which I should not be expected to put up with. I can deal with losing a debate, I cannot deal with being silenced with ignorance and bullshit.
I saw no point in trying to defend myself in such an environment. There was so much vituperative garbage at the start of the thread that I gave up reading for the sake of my sanity. I won't read it now. It would probably lead me to making more firm (but true) comments that wouldn't be liked by those editors who prefer artificial niceness to vigorous and honest debate.
So, I have no idea why I have been banned. My single goal here is to make a better encyclopaedia. I don't believe I've done anything wrong. That notice above certainly doesn't tell me the purpose. It will silence me at that topic. That will please those who disagree with my views in general. Was that the goal? Unfortunately it will also vindicate the actions of those who posted with hatred, ignorance and bigotry in that thread.
I wonder what people really think the ban will achieve in the longer term? I won't have changed after six months, especially when I don't know what my crime was. What's the point?

Please don't take offence at this. It's just a genuine expression of my feelings right now. I'm sure your intentions are good. And I would truly be interested in your thoughts on how one can defend oneself against bullshit, ignorance and bigotry here? There was far too much of that in those threads. (Please don't tell me what not to do. I'm looking for some positives.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

None so blind as one who will not see. HiLo48's "thoughts" echo the exact same rhetoric for which he received his topic ban, and I agree with Regentspark's intepretation of the consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not a response to what I just posted. HiLo48 (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
So it isn't.--WaltCip (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, I'm just the messenger. I do think we, all of us on Wikipedia, have become a site where editing restrictions are issued far too easily and, given the choice, I'd rather not topic ban anyone. However, the consensus on ANI was quite clear. I don't know much about you, I don't think we've ever interacted, but, based on the comments on ANI, and if I may take the liberty of making a suggestion, you might want to focus on Dweller's comment regarding the way you interact with other users (again, this comment is based only on the links in the ANI discussion). Moving forward, six months is not a long time, the ban is restricted to only one part of Wikipedia and there is plenty of other stuff you're probably interested in, and it is best to leave recriminations behind and focus on the future. One thing that came out of the ANI discussion was that almost everyone thought highly of you as an editor and as a someone with a focus on our encyclopedia building mission. Perhaps it is best to focus on this positive takeaway and to ruminate on why blocks and topic bans were being discussed at all. Something's gotta change and, since you can't possibly change a bunch of other people, ..... --regentspark (comment) 20:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I said above, too many of the posts at the start of that hate session were just that, hate posts, and I gave up reading it. I won't go back to it. There may have been some more rational posts later, but if you allow the crap to remain, why should I have to trawl through that dross to figure out which posts are sensible and which ones I should ignore. I won't even look for posts from one editor unless you can guarantee I won't see garbage on the way. I put considerable thoughts into my post at the top of this thread, as I do elsehwere. I appreciate your response, but most of my points still remain unanswered. HiLo48 (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
(uninvolved admin here) Your responses thus far have closely corroborated with the evidence thus provided: you seem to consider it possible to make the most flagrantly incivil comments so long as they are structured in such a way as to not very specifically call anyone any names directly. If you cannot see this as problematic then so be it: I'm willing to accept that you do not consider these uncivil, and take you at your word that you don't think you've done anything wrong here. However, that is not how most people see it, and our standards of civility are defined by the community and not personally. I personally think a topic ban is getting off somewhat lightly given that this isn't specific to ITN but relates to your general approach to interaction with others, and that unless you adjust your behaviour (whether you can see the problem or not) it's likely to result in further restrictions in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I like to hope that admins can see logic when it's presented. What I am saying is that I stopped looking at the thread full of accusations against me simply because so many of the early ones were simply untrue. I didn't stick around. I knew that trying to defend myself would simply inflame things, and there were already some pretty rabid posts there. That those dishonest posts are still there is, to me, a big problem. My question is, how am I meant to identify genuine, realistic criticisms among all that garbage? That you now come back with term like "general approach to interaction" doesn't really help. I believe my comments are honest and realistic. They are the kinds of language I use in my daily life and work. (Which isn't even in the same country as most other editors. Maybe cultural differences...?) I don't know exactly what's wrong with my "general approach to interaction". Nothing has been explained in the notification of my ban. I am banned for six months. Then what? Many of you (obviously not all) don't like my style, but you seem to have great difficulty explaining exactly what my crime is. Many simply lied about it, which suggests hatred, rather than rational discussion. How can I change what comes naturally and what you all cannot honestly and precisely describe? HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm prepared to accept that it's a cultural thing, if only because of the vociferous protestations in the Malleus ArbCom case by an Australian editor that much of what the community considers egregious abuse qualifies as casual banter from his cultural perspective. It is difficult for me to explain in any more detail than was provided at ANI exactly what you're doing "wrong", but suffice to say that nearly everyone else seems to be able to reach the same conclusion given the evidence and it would be a remarkable coincidence for them all to be able to do so were there no case to be answered. As for what happens next: unless you are able to identify why your interaction style is seen as abusive, and avoid that in future, the likelihood is that you will end up back at ANI again in relatively short order. There's not a lot anyone except for you can do about that. If I were you I would avoid making negative comments in general regardless of at whom or what they are directed, as this seems to be the only sure-fire way of ensuring that the community does not take (unintended) offence at your comments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
That reads much more like a threat than discussion. I see a lot of that on Wikipedia. "Be like us or be banned." Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Conformance with the community's norms of interaction is one of the five pillars, and it is necessary to ensure that such a massively diverse community is able to function. You accepted that when you signed up. For what it's worth, I spent a couple of hours fixing all the user boxes you use on your home page so that they line up properly: a minor kindness to show that I'm not out for your blood, and hopefully to impress upon you that it's unlikely anyone else is either. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It's much better. But I can't accept that no-one's out for my blood. There were a lot of nasty, incorrect allegations at the start of the threads which led to my conviction. Dunno if they stopped. Saw no point in playing that game. It was a kangaroo court. And they were all still there when I had a quick glance yesterday. I cannot do anything but see that whole situation negatively. The posts were either malicious or incompetent. (Unless you can think of some other explanation.) And those allowing such bullshit to remain on display aren't helping Wikipedia much either. How can I discuss such material without using negative language? HiLo48 (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but you can attempt to see the matter from the other side, and you can refrain from using negative language when discussing the situation. You are making the choice not to. You are not obligated to give your opinion of other editors, and you are not obligated to characterise their motives. You are making the choice to do these things. You are not incapable of reading through the whole of the discussion no matter how much of it you may disagree with. You are making the choice to ignore it. All of these things are at your discretion to resolve. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
HiLo, Chris is giving you some good advice here and you should pay attention to it. It is always important to understand the rules and norms of a social system you hang out in and to conform (largely) to those norms. On Wikipedia, speculating about the motives of other editors is generally not a good idea. I've been here long enough to see that editors, and this includes some excellent content writers, who end up believing that they are being victimized unfairly usually come to a bad end here. Where you go from here is entirely your call, but you may want to consider the undeniable fact that your current approach is not, fairly or unfairly, working very well. --regentspark (comment) 14:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
So, Chris is allowed to speculate the no-one is out for my blood, and when I point out, with good evidence, that he is almost certainly wrong, I'm told to shut up! No, I don't easily conform to the conservative norm of artificial niceness in Wikipedia. Those lying about me do, apparently. (Any consequences? No!) I truly don't know where to go from here. Do I really have to accept the lies and bullshit in the attack thread that had me convicted? While I'm sure you mean well, I don't know if you guys have actually seen all this from my perspective yet. It's very difficult to pretend that all is sweetness and light out there. This process is supposed to be justice. It's nothing of the kind. And I still come back to my original point. I don't know what it is that had me convicted. I saw a thread with a lot of crap in it. And it had me banned. I didn't do the crimes I saw I was supposed to have done. How can I pick out the ones that do matter? And I saw malicious editors writing permanent bullshit about me, with total freedom to do so, and no consequences. I AM the victim here, in a system that allows lynchings. HiLo48 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Well when you don't conform to the norms of society, that society usually retains their right to exclude you. Let me preface this by saying that to the best of my knowledge, I have never directly spoken to you and I really have no problem with you whatsoever. Now, maybe instead of being "artificially" nice like the rest of the community, as you claim, maybe you could try just being non-artificially blunt. Looking through your comments linked on AN/I, and through your comments related to the topic ban, you ooze defiance. No matter how ill-meaning or well-intentioned the comments directed towards you are made, you are defiant to any altering of your behavior. If you want someone to be honest, here it is: your comments and actions as of late, have been dick-like. Now, I'm not calling you a dick directly, but rather your comments, playing the victim and snubbing every comment regardless of how helpful someone is trying to be, is something that a dick would do. Acting like a dick is exactly why you have been topic banned. Now if you find this ironic, you should, because this is exactly what you have been doing to other users for several months. You act condescending towards them, telling them their comments are idiotic, when in fact you truly mean that they are idiots, pretending that you're commenting on something else. Maybe users got tired of those kinds of comments from you, and rightfully so, because saying those kinds of things repeatedly do nothing but come across as annoying at some point. To be quite frank with you, you deserve not only a topic ban, but a lengthy block. Your unwillingness to try and change anything despite specific examples and unwillingness to read a whole thread dedicated to your behavior, is exactly why you have been topic banned. You have been a detriment to In the News, and you're now banned from it for six months because of it. I think you're a terrific article contributor for the most part, but if you don't stop that behavior, you might end up not being here. I think the community has shown that it isn't trying to be artificial with you by enacting a topic ban, and you should maybe start to respect it a little if you intend to stick around. If your intent truly is to create the best encyclopedia possible, then it's time you start to prove it by moving on with your editing, leaving In the News behind you for now, and focusing on that. Regards, — Moe ε 09:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

ANI

you are being mentioned here, so I chose to inform you, regards.--DBigXray 05:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I always seem to miss the interesting bits :) --regentspark (comment) 13:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please clarify

Not sure why this was an Inappropriate closure, on the other hand I feel that there is a CoI. You are very much involved in the discussion can/should you undo it? I might be missing something --sarvajna (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures. Not a COI issue asking for an admin to close a deletion discussion. --regentspark (comment) 23:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Request

FPaS is stalking my edits, I do not want him stalking my edits, would you offer to check my edits occasionally to ensure I am not violating policy? I trust you to be fair and even as you have always been. If you were to offer to do random checks to ensure I am complying with policy then FPaS can stop stalking and harrasing me. Please consider this. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't really go around accusing people of stalking without some evidence DS. Regardless, I'll check in on your edits from time to time. --regentspark (comment) 22:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
P.S. What happened with the McKhan SPI? --regentspark (comment) 23:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing so far with the McKhan SPI. And FPaS has said on his talk page he is stalking me, and has refused to stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(out)McKhan got blocked for a month, I do not understand why he is not banned given his long term abuse of socks and personal attacks. A question, can I edit this article yet?[13] Sal asked me to leave it for a week, which was about three weeks ago, as you know he is not well and has not been online. I want to make sure that my ass does not get blocked if I edit it. The article is full of self published sources, and apparently the Northern Alliance are terrorists, even though no source says they are :o) and spying is also terrorism according to that "article". Personally I think is ought to be deleted as the only actual content which belongs there is the usual accusations form Pakistan. However I would like to try and clean it up. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I don't see why not. I'll drop a note on Salvio's talk page letting him know. Looking at the article history, I'm going to suggest that (a) don't tag the article - that would be unnecessarily confrontational, and (b) go ahead and make your changes but make sure you explain your rationale on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 14:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
So cleaning it up has proved impossible, every edit I make gets reverted. I am considering nominating it for deletion, the article is just one long list of allegations from Pakistan. I do not think there is a single source which does not say "Pakistan alleges". Any advice? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I missed this (it was hiding behind the signpost change). You can of course nominate it for deletion, no reason why not. But, look carefully at the previous deletion discussion and make sure your arguments are strong ones (if you want to get a good result - Wikipedia seems to be willing to keep almost anything these days). --regentspark (comment) 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to be willing to keep almost anything these days Well that's obvious, I'm still here Darkness Shines (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Not for want of trying :) --regentspark (comment) 21:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, I really appreciate the confidence you bestowed in me. Although I did not succeed, I certainly do feel glad that I had that experience and hope to continue making contributions to this site.

Take care. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 02:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Plug away. Sometimes, too often methinks, wikipedians are unable to see the forest for the trees! --regentspark (comment) 12:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you

Please explain to TG that there is no consensus for this[14] The admin who closed the RFC said it had to be discussed on how this went into the article, his only edits to this article is to add that crap. It will never get to FA status with that junk in it, it adds nothing to the article at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you take this up with Beeblebrox? I'm not sure what his close actually means. --regentspark (comment) 01:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC) (Addendum, I'll drop a note on that admins page.) --regentspark (comment) 01:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I did, he said it had to be discussed on how it was added. Then he said bugger off. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • DS made it very clear in the first RFC that he was talking about this specific text (see the very detailed specifications in the RFC summary)... it resulted in a keep and his removal is disruptive editwar against consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Also this article was just kept a month ago.. you are well aware of the conduct dispute here and with the fact that I created the article and IBAN was removed so that original issues could be seen... isn't this nomination after such a overwhelming consensus to keep, typical harassment? [15]. Note, DS's editwars are also being discussed at another admin's userpage [16] --lTopGunl (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
My reading of the beeblebrox's close is that the specific statement attributed to the report can stay. But that the way in which it is presented can be worked out. TG, would you consider an alternative wording that keeps the attribution to the Pakistan government report but not at the same level of detail? --regentspark (comment) 01:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually the detail is what I am supporting, other wise it will just become a passing mention and will censor the details which are correctly attributed per the RFC. If you see DS's details in that summary he left no loophole that this be mistaken. The fact that it was still kept means it is time to let it go and work on other parts of the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. If that's the case then a second RfC seems the only way out. Beeblebrox's close unfortunately did a lot of handwaving on what should be included. If specific text cannot be decided on on the talk page, then an RfC with alternative texts is probably the only way out. --regentspark (comment) 01:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is not my close, the problem is that these two would argue over whether rain is wet. The consensus at the RFC was that attribution be made clear in the article and that the edits reflect only what the sources say, allowing the reader to decide for themselves how much weight to give it. So, if this edit does those two things it is fine. If you can't figure out if it does or not between the three of you then you need WP:DR. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is your close, and if what you say above is how you saw that RFC were the majority said keep but not in a section of it's own or remove it altogether far outweighed the keep it as a section votes. Your close sucks. Were can I go to contest it? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I assume you (beeblebrox) have no comment on what the actual text of the article should be and assume that your close does not endorse the text in question. If the answer is no, then I suggest an RfC with actual text alternatives is the best way to proceed. If you endorse the text in question then some other level of DR would be necessary. --regentspark (comment) 17:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark/Archive_13&oldid=1136148608"