Jump to content

User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 7

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

The Mattisse biscuit

[edit]

Hi, RegentsPark. It's unpleasant altogether for me to read Mattisse's page at this time, naturally, and I tend to avoid it; but now that for once I've read it all the way through, I've got to say your defense of Mattisse at my expense really takes the bisquit. Would you like to be accused of cabalism, or of harassing Jimbo Wales? Or being called a "toxic personality"? No? Really, you wouldn't? Well, I'm surprised, since you apparently think such attacks are perfectly all right—quite appropriate—"innocuous", "limited", merely "juvenile in character", "barely abusive" (!) etc—as long as they're levelled at somebody else. Are you sure you read the diffs of the CallMeNow account before calling them innocuous? Or is there some special reason why you think it's proper for me, in particular, to have snake venom and bile spat at me by Mattisse? Have I offended you in some way? And do you see how your insistence on the harmlessness of Mattisse's sock edits is encouraging her to offer a mind-blowing defense which can only harm her cause? ("I made a few harmless edits" ... "I thought that was the 'playful' way to do it".) You're far from alone on that page in carelessly offering offense to me, or in handing Mattisse a spade with which to enlarge the hole she's standing in, but I do believe you're the worst; congratulations.Bishonen | talk 07:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm. I haven't come across your monicker before and don't know you so I can assure you that no offense was intended and I apologize for any taken. I didn't expect that anyone would be offended by random drive by comments of this sort but clearly I was wrong. Thank you for letting me know. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited...

[edit]
New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 07/25/2009
This box:view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recentWiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects likeWikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

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

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

[edit]

... we did the laundry, mended the fence, extended the library, and kept (most) of the zombies out, while you were vacationing. Trust you'll at least weed the lawn ? :-) Abecedare (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.... if the lawn doesn't weed me first....! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 08:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese Indians

[edit]

Hi, Can you please create a 2 paragraph introduction to the article. You seem better at editing .

Vinay84 (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try but this holiday weekend here does not help! Nice work on the article - you're taking it up several notches on the quality rungs. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I am not an expert on this .I have been expanding the article based on the available definition.

--Vinay84 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, That was very nice of you. BTW if you have info about nepalese in Burma , maybe a new article can be started

--Vinay84 (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Ultimatum from the reviewer. CAn you do any epansion? especially introduction and economic roles.[reply]

--Vinay84 (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not till Monday. Plus, I can only really copy edit and rewrite based on what is in the article because all I have is personal and anecdotal information (no sources). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you think we should ask for another editor to review the article since the current reviewer seems to have become inactive --Vinay84 (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a good idea. My problem is that I can't edit to the GA (or FA) timetables so, though I'll try to lend a hand, don't count on me for too much! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones)14:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User User:Ata Fida Aziz edits

[edit]

Aye, after checking Gilgit-Baltistan and Gilgit Agency pages history and latest edits by User:Ata Fida Aziz, seems that he/she wishes to change "partition of India" to "independence of Pakistan". I'd say that is one side of the story, though, but the Partition of India page at least tells background. I've reverted edits in Pakistan – United States relations, Pakistani literature, Demographics of Karachi, Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit Agency and Gilgit.

I'd like to ask for opinion — what to do next, wade through his/hers log or accept Pakistani side of view? Cheers,--Rayshade (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case I think you are doing the right thing. I don't see how the situation of the various Kashmir entities can be understood solely in terms of the independence of Pakistan (i.e., without reference to the partition of India).--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sock of the banned User:Paknur who was the formerly banned Siddiqui (talk · contribs) who has an obsession with removing the word India everywhere. Like many of his compatriots, he likes to write websites claiming that Pakistanis are Arabs/Persians and racially distinct from the people of India and Bangladesh etc, and likes referring to things like "ancient Pakistani poet" to avoid the word India. We need to ask someone to make an edit filter to catch these edits from the usual banned Pakistanis YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, dug through Aziz's edits, reverted obvious issues wherever Yellowmonkey wasn't already done with it. Some of his/hers edits were actually helpful, typically masking the not-so-useful ones, though. However, there are several page moves that need more experience than I have. BTW, User:Ata Fida Aziz also has a habit of removing Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan. Cheers, --Rayshade (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Labor Day!

[edit]

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend,--A NobodyMy talk 04:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khatri

[edit]

Can you take a look at this? It got on my watchlist because I've been G4 tagging a set of related articles that created under a new title every day because the previous one is SALTed. On this one, one particular user KhatriNYC (talk · contribs) comes by every few days and reverts ALL edits between their prior visit and now. Don't know what to make of it other than it's absurd.-SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 04:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Its not absurd, its the truth and i live by it unlike some users here. Some people post edits from unrelieble and unacredited sources, so I have every right to put the Khatri page back to its original format, with everything at the point have acredited citations/references.

--KhatriNYC (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are online ...

[edit]

... and YM is perhaps not, can you take a look atthis ? Nothing urgent really, but thought I'd drop you a line since I saw you were cleaning Chhotaa Ghallooghaaraa‎. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also fix this cut-n-paste attempt-at-move: Wadda Ghallooghaaraa vs Wadda Ghalughara ? I haven't researched the preferred transliteration. Abecedare (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YM can run a cu on this new user (I can't!). And you're not going to catch me doing masochistic things like reversing cut and paste moves! I'll probably just mess it up anyway. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On this what would be required is G6 deletion of Wadda Ghallooghaaraa and then recreating a redirect and/or moving to the right spelling. Already someone has redirected the article, so it appears ok from at least a two article aspect, but it's still a GFDL vio (not that I think it needed clarifying, but the GFDL vios in this walled garden are getting too much, so I felt like chiming in). cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes18:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<deindebt>
"not going to catch me doing masochistic things" A non-masochistic admin is an oxymoron. De-sysop! Desysop! :-)
But seriously, I myself am unsure on the preferred Punjabi transliteration, so it may be best for the article name to be discussed before deciding on its final resting place (no pun intended). The current situation with Wadda Ghallooghaaraaredirecting to Wadda Ghalughara at least prevents the article history from being split. I'll raise thearticle name question on the talk page, and hopefully some knowledgeable users will chime in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

[edit]

Thanks for protecting the Devo page. I am sure [1] is the reason for the mess. Sorry, and thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I won't even pretend to understand what's going on :-) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A long story blow way out of proportion by kids who feel the need to vandalize WP. 's All. Thanks again.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring page

[edit]

I appreciate your input. If you could watchlist User:Mattisse/Monitoring' you could help me in dealing with future problems. I hope not to disappoint you again. I am very sorry. —mattisse(Talk) 23:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watching. Hope I can do a better job of advising you the next time! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. And glad to have you back in un-retired form! :-) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert

[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that I've re-protected this article following persistent vandalism almost immediately after you unprotected it. Hopefully this is acceptable. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised :-) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones)01:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ode on Indolence FAC

[edit]

"makes a number of pertinent points (the 'most enjoyed' is a prime example) " - The source says that something was the "most enjoyed" thing he did that year. That would mean that it was more enjoyed than everything else that year. It is not a leap or original research to claim that he stated that he enjoyed writing the ode than any of the other odes, as that was the most enjoyed. Other sources say the same thing and in different words. The critics interpret what he says as being exact and claim it is puzzling why if he enjoyed -writing- the poem so much why he didn't enjoy the actual poem. That is the point of the sentence and I don't see where there are any grammar problems in it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that, though Keats did say that writing the ode was the thing 'he most enjoyed that year', he did so in a letter and did not directly say that he enjoyed writing that particular ode more than he did writing the others. The fact that he did do so in a letter makes it a casual comment that should not be accepted with a great deal of certainty. At best, one can conclude is that "In a letter to Miss Jeffery, Keats said that writing this ode had been 'the thing he had most enjoyed that year' and that this was the same year that he wrote Ode to a Nightingale, Ode to a Grecian Urn, etc." I guess the issue is the leap to the conclusion 'enjoyed writing this ode more than the others' because Keats might not have made the same statement if an explicit comparison had been offered. Since we can't examine the state of his mind at the point he wrote the letter, we are likely better off not going beyond his exact words. I also agree that there is an unwarranted connection being drawn between 'unpublished' and 'most enjoyed' in the first paragraph. The 'though' that is being used as a connector should not be there. I would prefer to separate the two thoughts. In a June xx letter, Keats wrote that this ode 'brought him the most joy that year'.(ref) Unlike the other four, "Ode on Indolence" remained unpublished until 1848, 27 years after Keats's death.(ref) I have no issues with the grammar but Fowler is a grammar pedant, at times excessively so, and he does tend to go on about it (I have a vague recollection of his insisting that we write something in a convoluted past simple because that was grammatically correct while I argued that past perfect would make for simpler sentences. Or something like that anyway.) Plus, I can see that his past conflicts with you were getting the better of his judgement. Hopefully that will now be a thing of the past. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones)03:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC) BTW, may I add that the article is well written and not only very readable but also makes enjoyable reading. Hard though it might be, you may want to ignore Fowler's barbs and focus on some of his substantial comments. It would make a fine article better. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of the Armenian Genocide

[edit]

In Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide you wrote

"Having one article on the Armenian genocide and another labeled dispute does imply that the genocide itself is disputed (my understanding - mostly from lay knowledge and from reading the discussion - is that it is the recognition that is the focus of dispute not the genocide itself."

I think you need to know far more about what genocide is before you close such a debate. I suggest that you read the articleBosnian Genocide as it explains it. One can have crimes against humanity which may even be described as the criminal act of genocide but which are not genocide because there is no intent to commit genocide as described in this passage:

In September 2006, former Bosnian Serb leader Momcilo Krajisnik was found guilty of multiple instances ofcrimes against humanity, but while the ICTY judges found that there was evidence that crimes committed in Bosnia constituted the criminal act of genocide (actus reus), they did not establish that the accused possessedgenocidal intent, or was part of a criminal enterprise that had such an intent (mens rea).

The position of some/many (?) not sure of the quantity, but defiantly the British Government is that crimes against humanity were committed by the Ottoman Government but mens rea is not proven. Given that there are broadly three positions on a spectrum from genocide through to no crimes against humanity were committed, having two articles makes it impossible to represent the positions with a NPOV. For example here is the current US position, which with the current structure is difficult to integrate into the two articles.

The word Genocide is short and sharp, unlike the longer term "Crime against humanity" so the former makes more of an impact in newspaper headlines, but they usually cover similar physical acts, (indeed it is difficult to see how most forms of genocide could be committed without also committing crimes against humanity), the major difference is that genocide has to be directed at specific groupings and the perpetrators have to be part of a conspiracy to which intends to destroy the group. For example Krajisnik main move for killing seemed to the court to be out of revenge, not with the intent to destroy the group biologically (that these killings may have helped to destroy the group does not make his acts genocidal, although such killings were crimes against humanity).

Not one of the people who wish to keep the the situation as it is (with two articles) have presented any justification for having two articles, so one article has to be move if a merger is to take place. Given that there is no policy and guideline justification for having two articles, I would ask you to reconsider the closing of this requested move in the way you have, as I have chosen the name from a reliable source, but there are others that also used the nameQ&A: Armenian genocide dispute an article that the BBC had to rewrite to meet their own NPOV and factual guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

[edit]

Hi RegentsPark. Earlier I had a taken a source to the WP:RS board about a 'BBC documentary and Alaya Rahm trial'. It was discussed for a week by 4 independent wikipedians including you. In the end it was concluded that 'the 0ld BBC documentary' can either be removed as the following trial made it questionable (or) if left in the article the other secondary source 'The Daily Pioneer' which covers the 'Alaya Rahm trial' must also be included.

In the conclusion the source referred by Priyanath is the 'Daily Pioneer' article.

  • New developments:

There are some editors and other activists who don't want to follow the earlierWP:RS recommendation and took it to theWP:RS board again and did not present case / facts correctly. There was not even a mention about the 'Alaya Rahm trial' which is mainly covered in the 'The Daily Pioneer' article.

  • I informed in the WP:RS board that this source has already been discussed and declared as 'reliable'.
  • Response from Fifelfoo herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Pioneer_.2F_Sandhya_Jain was 'I don't particularly case what past RS discussions found. OP-ED pieces do not present facts, but opinions'. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC). WP:RS supposed to be helping the editors but in this case its causing more confusing. If the WP:RScommentors says he doesn't care about earlier WP:RS discussions then why should editors care anything what the WP:RSboard says in these discussion?
  • Why should a source already declared as reliable discussed again in the WP:RS.
  • Any suggestions from you herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Pioneer_.2F_Sandhya_Jain

will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Venom alert"

[edit]

I agree that Mattisse's choice of words was unhelpful at what started as parts of 1 ANI and has split into 2, and have already said so. However I think your "the way to look at this is that an editor has posted a comment on the monitoring page with the goal of alerting mentors to an action of Mattisse" ignores the terms in which Bishonen posted that comment. For example if Mattisse had used similar language, I suspect there would have been calls for an immediate block. Baiting and pack-hunting are too common on WP. Perhaps we should ask some ArbCom memebers if they interpret on Mattisse as meaning that that Mattisse must submissively put up with behaviour which they would not condone from her. --Philcha(talk) 18:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just think we aren't helping Mattisse by focusing on the editor who posted the 'alert' regardless of the fact that the header is inflammatory. The point is not that this is an unfair dump on Mattisse but rather that extending the discussion on the mentoring page is counter-productive. Enough drama surrounds and follows Mattisse anyway, why add more (fuel to the fire)? Perhaps, as KC suggests, the correct forum would have been a post on Bishonen's talk page with a request to refactor the heading. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

[edit]

Help on Y-Chromossomal Aaron Article

[edit]

RegentsPark, we have one misterious person (looks the same) that is vandalizing the Y-chromosomal Aaron article and Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) article, AGAIN. I dont know what to do anymore. Please, help us with this person. See the article.. Regards --MCohenNY (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your input needed at ...=

[edit]

... User_talk:Dbachmann#British_India. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysore and Coorg FAC

[edit]

Your feedback at History of Mysore and Coorg FAC is greatly appreciated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues (except additional alt-text that I will be adding in bits and pieces during the day) have now been dealt with. I welcome comments from you at theFAC review or on thearticle talk page. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goa

[edit]

The editor I was writing to has very strong opinions about Goa. To me, Goa has some special significance which is not mentioned at all. I am seeking to understand what others think. I already know what opponents think; they want no mention of Goa. After understanding what some others think, I might make a proposal. I am no troublemaker who seeks to edit/revert/edit things. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

[edit]

Lol

[edit]

I burst out laughing seeing your edit-summary here since I could pictur a street hawker making the pitch to passers-by. :-) Abecedare (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


First day as an admin and I am in the sights of Light current (talk · contribs) (see User talk:79.75.33.122 ,User:LargeHadron), my user pages are being vandalized etc. You know who I blame, right ?! Abecedare(talk) 23:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All part of my goon squad! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones)02:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

[edit]

Further to my reply @ my talk, please do feel free to set a shorter expiry if you're willing to watch the article. I've found the edit-to-revert ratio is too high, even on days other than his birthday. –xenotalk 17:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Race and crime in the United States

[edit]

Hi, RegentsPark. I recently made significant changes to the article Race and crime in the United States to reflect both the concerns regarding neutrality and synthesis as well as the results of some informal research I conducted regarding what could be seen as a fair and even-handed presentation. I would be grateful if you could review the article anew and comment on the talk page. If there are still concerns regarding NPOV and SYNTH, please indicate how the article could be further improved. Thanks, --Aryaman(talk) 15:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article is expanding rapidly! :-) I'll take a look next week - let's aim to get rid of that synthesis tag quickly.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi

[edit]

Thanks for your quick action. I hope you would monitor the article in future to prevent disruptive behavior by some users.--Nosedown (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've got it on my watchlist but do let me know of any disruptive editors. --RegentsPark(sticks and stones) 02:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis Take Manhattan

[edit]

Wikis Take Manhattan
Next: Saturday October 10


This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

148 Lafayette Street
between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

[edit]

Thanks...

[edit]

...for your help with the Naya water. Hey, you're back from travelling the world? How was it, and how was the world?Drmies (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The world was pretty much still there ... and I'm still here as well. Overall, a net positive!--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey RP, what do you think of Naya (water) now? I haven't checked all these references and links yet, but I think the tone isn't promotional anymore. I'm hoping for an all-expenses paid trip to the Laurentian mountainsand a weekend of splurging and shopping in Montreal--oh yes I'm on the take. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's ok though the lead needs a rewrite. BTW, shouldn't the article be at Naya (bottled water) or something like that?--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see ...

[edit]

... THIS ?! Abecedare (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:3O at A Guide to PMBOK

[edit]

User:RegentsPark, I wanted to thank you for your WP:3O at Talk:A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Sadly, it appears that the other party in the issue isn't willing to compromise and doesn't think that either of us has the expertise to touch his article. Consequently, I've listed it at WP:WQA#User:Pm master and policy v. expertisein the hope that someone there will be able to communicate with him.

Anyhow, I just wanted you to know that I appreciated your effort, and if you want to continue to help out on this article, I (for one) would be grateful. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised. But I'm not sure if WQA is the right forum. An RfC may be more appropriate but perhaps WQA will bring more eyes on the article, and that won't hurt. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about taking it to WP:RFCC, but at that point, there wasn't the required 2nd opinion from another editor on his talk page. There is now, but I think I'll give him the weekend and see after that if he's responded to any of what's happened so far. I'll let you know if I start up an RFC, and thanks! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Margaret of Valois?

[edit]

Seriously? There was no consensus for a move. Clearly. If there's no consensus and one side is making nonsense arguments, that's one thing, but this was clearly an issue of personal preference and such. That you prefer Margaret of Valois does not mean there was a consensus for a move. If this is how it works, why didn't I just hold back for the whole move discussion, and then swoop in to close as no consensus because I think the argument against the move was better? Obviously wikipedia isn't a democracy, but closing editors don't get to decide that there's a consensus when there's not one.john k (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regent,
Will all respect due you & your position as a Wikipedia Administrator, I was surprised at the speed with which you took the decision for the move of Marguerite de Valois to Margaret of Valois, as it seems to me that you totally ignored the on-going discussion, further down the page in the Google books section, pointing to a trend to compromise, changing the title to Marguerite of Valois, thus keeping the French first name and changing the de to of. Although this was not my preference, I was going to vote for the compromise. I also thought that, if we waited a few more days, more readers would enter the discussion & vote for one of the three proposed titles.
You based your decision on Encyclopædia Britannica, but Wikipedia is not EB, otherwise, why not simply copy its 1911 edition, which is now in the public domain, and forget about creating a never-heard-of before type of work in which people from all walks of life & from all around the world can participate in en:wiki ?
As I mentioned in one of my comments, Encyclopædia Britannica is shaking off its cobwebs, and one can read in itsMargaret of Valois article, 2009 online edition: Catherine de Médicis & Marie de Médicis:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/364625/Margaret-of-Valois
This is not to suggest that the articles on Catherine & Marie de' Medici be moved to their name in French, but to show you that even names in articles of the much respected Encyclopædia Britannica are not set in stone.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'm sorry this is generating so much heat! Any decision in a situation where the editors are split down the middle is bound to dissatisfy this half or that, but, in this case, I think that Margaret of Valois has the edge (slight though it may be). It should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway, I have no stake in the discussion and no personal preference for either name. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regent,
Speaking only for myself (with no "heat" involved!), I was hoping that more readers would be given the opportunity to join the discussion that was still going on, and that a real consensus could be reached. John K. had spent a lot of time searching for material to prove his point & had come up with very interesting results that were leading to a compromise. As the argumentation was cut short, some of us feel that the door to the discussion room was slammed shut on us, with John's search done for nothing.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The move being closed this way has no bearing on continuing the discussion (nothing is sacrosanct on wikipedia - well, almost nothing!). All the closure says is that usage and reliable sources don't give enough guidance so we should use what other encyclopedias use. If either usage or sources do give guidance, or if other encyclopedias are divided, then, the move can, and should, be reconsidered. So I don't see why the discussion room door was slammed shut.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what it felt like. Thank you for explaining. Best regards, Frania W. (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proper decision when editors are split down the middle is that there is no consensus and it stays where it is. That's how this works. john k (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basic point is - just because you're an admin that doesn't mean you get to decide what happens. The closing admin's job is to reflect consensus and use admin tools to execute it, not to decide a solution - you have no more right to singlehandedly decide where the page should be than Frania or I do. There was no consensus, so the article should have stayed. Your position on why it should be at Margaret of Valois is reasonable and coherent - but it is just your opinion, and the proper way to express that would have been to vote to support the move, not to push a move through as a closing admin. Also, if you're going to respond, why not respond on the talk page, rather than here? john k (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. (From WP:CONSENSUS.) Also, the next time you want the discussion to be on the article talk page, you might want to start the discussion there and post a note on relevant user talk pages. I typically respond to questions wherever they are placed. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regent, I again agree with John Kenney and, although your decision has been taken & there is nothing we can do about it (until we find more support for our side of the argument or until Wikipedia is clearer on some of its hard to figure out policies), I found it rather abrupt at the time that you should end the discussion after only five readers had taken part in it for a very short time.
I also would like to point out to you that the very people who "ganged up" against John & me are having a free-for-all against each other on another discussion page as it appears that the person who decided the change of "Marguerite de Valois" to "Margaret of Valois" is on a crusade to change all the names in Wikipedia to their English counterpart, and one of his previous allies is not in agreement on this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helvig_of_Holstein
What I find amusing in their little battle is that they are referring to one particular instance of enrolling one another against us in which one went as far as deleting that very conversation on the other's talk page in order to erase trace of it.
The very fact that these two persons felt they had to step out of Wikipedia territory in order to prepare a "coup" against other Wikipedians & win their argument is lodged in my throat.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly don't want to be seen as endorsing some sort of mass anglicization of wikipedia. I'll drop a note on the talk page of Margaret of Valois explaining the limitations of a move closure. Thanks for the heads-up.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Frania W. (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

[edit]

Requesting help

[edit]

Could you take a look at my recent contributions to the discussion surrounding Mattisse, especially with regards to your fellow mentor, John Carter? I genuinely thought I was helping Mattisse by cleaning up that page and moving the contents, in toto to the talkpage. I've been, quite simply, under attack since I tried. I have appreciated your general equanimity, and seeming willingness to challenge Mattisse a bit, so I'd like to understand where you feel things went wrong. UnitAnode 02:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look but would rather not comment if that's ok. I think you're initial postings in both this as well as the previous case were likely made in good faith and treat them accordingly. However, it is clear to me that there are longer term dynamics that involve Mattisse and many others who post on her talk page as well as the mentoring page (this includes mentors as well as the editors who comment there) and I have neither the time nor the energy to figure out what these dynamics are. So, I'll continue to help Mattisse by commenting on specific situations that arise - assuming I can get there soon enough :-) - and bury my head in the sand about everything else - Sorry!--RegentsPark(sticks and stones) 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, friend. I should never have let myself get sucked into that vortex. I won't be using that page again. Thanks for taking a look -- and for not questioning my integrity. UnitAnode 02:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tinu nom

[edit]

Very well written nomination. Reminded me the brilliantly worded User:YellowMonkey noms from times past --Samir 02:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well it's not the RfA that counts, it's what they do afterwards..... :( YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't look at me - I'm still waiting for the wall street bonus I was promised! (Thanks Samir!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 10:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan

[edit]

Request opened by Moni3 here. --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RegentsPark, your comment on "advocacy mentoring" was well reasoned! --Philcha (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, to be honest, I am actually completely confused. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this topic if you're a little less confused than most others you're well ahead of the pack.
Most seriously, what concerns you? --Philcha (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the face of it, Mattisse hasn't done anything particularly egregious (except the sock puppet thing which was totally wrong) since the mentorship started, not by the standards of wikipedia anyway but it seems pretty clear that there is a group of editors who would rather see Mattisse just gone from wikipedia. While a few of the editors from this group just seem to be rabble rousing (again, I'm only partially aware of the history so perhaps they have good reason), there are quite a few whose opinions I generally respect so I am confused about whether this entire process is meaningful at all.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

[edit]

So I should ignore the demands for diffs? —mattisse (Talk) 18:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has become confused enough that I'm not sure which demand you refer to. However, I would suggest striking out any comments that lead to the demand for diffs. If I may say so, you are confusing battles for wars (or is it forests for trees!). There are times when an army has to lie low and regroup. Methinks this is one of those times. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So all this is meaningless? —mattisse (Talk) 19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please watchlist this page!

[edit]

This is the new page for editors who are not my mentors/advisers to make editorial comments on: User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments. Please watch list this page. However, I would prefer that dissatisfied editors contact a mentor/adviser individual, to prevent a battleground or attack mentality from developing on that page. Please let me know if you object to this. Thanks! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible request?

[edit]

I see that you made it so Gaunkars of Goa cannot edit his/her own talk page.

In the spirit of Deepavali, would you kindly consider the following message to GofG?

"I am sorry that I have to prevent you from editing your own talk page. However, enjoy Deepavali. Afterwards, you will be allowed to respond to other user's questions. Do so with kindness and respect. Whether good behavior will result in eventual unblock, I cannot promise or even speculate that it is likely. However, good behavior could be a demonstration of your personal character"

Note that I have not requested unblock. Let me know your thoughts. The title of this section "Possible request?" is because I am uncertain of what GofG will do in the future so I don't want to look like I am seeking his/her pardon.

Essentially, what GofG is saying is that Portugal had no jurisdiction to cede Goa. Is this true??? If so, sources? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much point in all this. I think we gave Gaunkars of Goa sufficient latitude on his talk page but he chose to continue to use it as a soapbox. You can, if you like, dig up reliable sources for whether Portugal had or did not have jurisdiction to cede Goa (in practical terms, the 'did not' is unlikely!) but that's your call.--RegentsPark(sticks and stones) 20:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi in World War I

[edit]

From my talk page:

"Hi Nirvana2013. I like the overall addition of this section to the article but we need to be careful about what we say there. The Charlie Andrews criticism, for example, stands out for several reasons. First, Andrews was writing after the war and so the 'at that time' is not accurate."

I believe he wrote a critical letter at the time (i.e. June 1918) to Gandhi. We can see Gandhi's reply 68. LETTER TO C. F. ANDREWS June 23, 1918 at gandhiserve.org but I have not managed to find Andrews original letter to Gandhi.

"Second, Andrews says he could not reconcile this act with other acts of Gandhi. This does not necessarily imply that he was critical of Gandhi regarding the recruitment."

A copy of the letter would verify, but third person references such as Desai point in that direction.

"Third, Andrews is just one person and is not a scholar on Gandhi. My feeling is that this must be the subject of comment by Gandhi scholars and summarizing the way they perceived the recruitment is likely a better way to go (Desai, for example, saysThe question of the consistency between his creed of 'Ahimsa' (non-violence) and his recruiting campaign was raised not only then but has been discussed ever since so there must be scholarly material on this)."

I agree. I like the way Desai phrased it, but it needs some primary source references. It is strange that the subject of Gandhi's role in WWI has slipped under the radar until now. It has only been brought to my attention by a current BBC documentary called Gandhi by reporter Mishal Husain.

"Also, the contrast with the Boer War is not made by the source, at least I couldn't find it, and the source is primary, so you might want to remove that."

It does seem that Gandhi's involvement has certainly changed from earlier war involvements, see 8. LETTER T0 J. L. MAFFEY April 30, 1918 at gandhiserve.org. It is one thing to recruit stretcher bearers but quite another to recruit combatents.

"As a final matter, do you want to take this article back to Featured status? I can help if you're willing to take the lead. I think it is fairly close but needs leg work. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Given the amount of letters, leaflets and books Gandhi wrote while he was alive it should be possible to verify most things. I too would like to see the article back at featured status, however I am not sure I can spare the time at the moment. Perhaps in a few weeks/months when my gardening work subsides over the winter. All the best, nirvana2013(talk) 13:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Let me know when you're ready and I'll help. Meanwhile, I'll try to dig up some more stuff on Gandhi and WW1. (Gardening has ended where I live!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A start on the ArbCom report

[edit]

Here. SilkTork *YES! 10:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commented. I'll add more tomorrow (today is a dead loss). I like the format and thanks for taking the initiative!--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

Do you have time to do a GA review of an article currently at GAN? The literature section appears to be backlogged by more than a month, and I'd like to do this soon as I would like to take it to FA soon after. The article is R. K. Narayan, the link to the not-yet-started review is on the talk page. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 02:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're having a hard time finding a reviewer (scraping the bottom of the barrel, so to speak!). I'll do it if you're not in a big hurry. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones)18:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am a bit desperate. Seeing the backlog, I wasn't awfully keen on the pit stop at GAN, butAbecedare was rather persuasive :) Given that I'm trying my best to counter systemic bias by devoting all my article writing time on ignored notables, it doesn't look like I'll ever find reviewers for any of them! I'll check with a few others too, and if it's still not reviewed when you're ready to look at it, please do so!-SpacemanSpiff 19:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies is reviewing the article, so you don't have to worry about it anymore. cheers.-SpacemanSpiff 19:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
That's too bad. I'd just about finished sharpening my Talwar! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

[edit]

RFA spam

[edit]
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 in 2

[edit]
  1. You beatme by 48 seconds
  2. Glad to see your "goon squad" work again.
  3. Who's next ? :-)

Abecedare (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had one finger on the enter key :-). Any ideas on who we should nominate next? I'd love to see Fowler as an admin, and will nominate him if he's interested, but a Fowler RfA is bound to provide more entertainment than your's and Tinucherian's!--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Among editors I have personally interacted at a significant level, I would immediately trust User:Priyanath,User:Redtigerxyz, User:Dwaipayanc, User:Shreevatsa, User:Vadakkan (aka Arvind), User:Kensplanet,User:SpacemanSpiff ... with the mop. Unfortunately I haven't been able to persuade the first two yet; Dwaipayan and Kensplanet are relatively inactive; and Arvind and SpacemanSpiff will unfortunately encounter editcountitis and timeonwikititis opposes (just shows how silly those can be in some cases). That said, there are several other names on the WP:IND EDITS list that I have a high opinion of, and have not listed here only because I am not as familiar with their complete editing history.
As for F&f, I would honestly love to see him as an admin, but his nomination's success will depend greatly on your goon squad's abilities. :-)
Who all do you have in mind ? Abecedare (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of spacemanspiff but he should probably wait a bit (also, I've unfortunately staked out a 'one-year waiting policy' that makes it kinda hard for me to nom or co-nom him!). Unless he is a returned user :-). Arvind will definitely run into edit count issues but any of the others are both qualified as well as capable. Why don't you pick one from your list, persuade them, and write up a nom? If Fowler is willing, I'm not sure I can get my goon squad to work for Fowler (their overtime rates will bankrupt me!) but I'm certainly willing to write up a persuasive nom and try.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep bugging the ones on my list. Btw I understand and half-support your logic for the 1 year editing history; of course I think SS should be an exception. :-) Maybe in 3 more months, he'll be nominate-able.
It's a pity about F&f's chances at RFA. There are very few editors on wikipedia whose judgment on encyclopedic content and sources I trust as much. The silver lining is that, in terms of what F&f is best at, he can be effective even without the measly admin tools. Abecedare (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came by to post another message above, and found this! ThaddeusB offered to nom me before but I declined. I'm currently enjoying editing WP and don't think masochism is my cup of tea to enhance that experience. Also, I hardly do any activity (or have an interest in doing at a sustained level) that requires admin tools, so that is a straight disqualifier. Thanks for thinking that I'd be qualified :) cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 19:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I couldn't decide where it was you (Abecedare) said you were talking behind my back. Finally found it. I'm flattered by your confidence in me, but I completely agree with RP that my RfA will be a spectacle. More importantly, I feel that I'm not really administrator material. I am someone who gets pleasure out of being spontaneous, quirky and curmudgeon-y on talk pages. I'm afraid I'll have to become too well-behaved (for my own good) if I become an administrator. I'm best retained as part of the goon squad. Perhaps in six months or a year, if I find myself settling down, we can revisit the topic. Thanks again! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. I could have made a fortune selling tickets for your RfA! Still, the idea is seductive and Admin Fowler would clean out the POV warriors in seconds flat! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) Meanwhile I will train on the Fowler admin prep video game. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Format fix thanks

[edit]

Thanks for removing the leading spaces in this format fix so Modelmanager's two paragraphs no longer ran waaaaay off the page. — Athaenara ✉ 03:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at TParis00ap's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Warning

[edit]

Do not edit other people's comments like you did here. It is unacceptable practice. Combined with your snide attacks, rude behavior, and incivility, this represents extremely poor judgment. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. That was not intended (even I'm not that quick). However, I don't really expect you to see that so do what you want with it. Regards. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Ottava, please don't refactor my comments." Stating false claims in edit summaries is a personal attack. Refactor means to change or remove. I moved your indenting down to its appropriate spot. My edit was a double indent as was yours, which showed that you replied to the person -above-. You do not inter-thread between people like that, especially when there is a separate conversation that would be broken by the comment. Furthermore, you made it so it looked like I responded to myself, which-is- a violation of WP:TALK. What is with you violating just about every policy we have? It is really inappropriate.Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? It is triple indented ([2]). Either way, you really should try to assume that others are acting in good faith. (I suppose I should have said move rather than refactor, but you should ask before you move something.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the edit you changed. This is the edit you changed that I had to fix. thumperward at 00:25, 26 October 2009 is one indent. You added your post in with three indent before -my- response to him that was two indent. My post was added back to where it was and your response was knocked down to an appropriate two indent response. You removed -my- response to your post and made it so it responded to me. There is -nothing- in the above diff that matches anything you have stated. This is the 7th time in the past 24 hours that you have made a claim that was 100% false. This is extremely troubling. You cannot just move my posts and make them appear as responses to myself, nor can you move my posts down to change the threading completely. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you both just screwed up in replying, and everything is now in its proper place. So now you can get back to the discussion that was in progress. :) Prodego talk 03:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would prefer my reply be below Chris Cunningham's (where it originally was) rather than that of Ottava but that's ok. Better to let poor Ottava get some rest. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 10:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

I saw your comments at theANI and I am sorry for canvasing; However, one problem still persists, we need a neutral admin who can overlook the rewrite/reword part. If you see Talk:Wendy Doniger, you will realize this. The content in dispute isn't much, about 3-4 paragraphs or so. I see thatUser:Toddst1 is on a "semi-wiki break". Is it possible for you to do this; Probably will not take much of your time, you can drop by whenever you are free and share you thoughts. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize but I am tied up with real world things for the next couple of weeks. Could you ask someone else? IfUser:Abecedare is willing to do it, the article will be in good hands!--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

[edit]

Did I forget to thank you? ..

[edit]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes toRegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 10:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Tinucherian. I thought this was a no-brainer at the start and am happy to see that the community whole-heartedly agrees! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentors / advisers / whatever

[edit]

Hi, RegentsPark, I noticed when the "mentoring" was first discussed in July that the majority are UK (inluding me). You're the only one I'm confident is from USA, and you say you're around at Eastern time. I've always thought it would be a big advantage to have someone from one of the western time zones to respond quickly - some incidents have festered / piled-on / etc. while mnost mentors were fast asleep. Any ideas? --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No ideas at all :) The folks in California are too busy surfing to worry about wikipedia!

Notification of AfD of potential interest.

[edit]

Hello there, I thought I would draw your attention to this article as you were involved in discussions about its notability (You provided a third opinion): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Guide_to_the_Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge It has been nominated for deletion, feel free to comment on the relevant project page. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

responded. Thanks for the note. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

[edit]
File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough togive me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough toagree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely,--A NobodyMy talk 16:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse report

[edit]

Would you please read over User:SilkTork/Report#Draft_Final_Report and confirm that you are content for this to be given as the requested report to ArbCom. SilkTork *YES! 20:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

[edit]

New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday November 15th, Columbia University area
Last: 09/13/2009


This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

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

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot(talk) 03:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

[edit]

re: closing

[edit]

I was just about to edit this in:

The alternative as proposed by Ncmvocalist is adopted. 18 editors (as of 03:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)) have supported either resolution, and 3 have exclusively supported the alternative. 8 have opposed either resolution. Of the 8 opposers, 3 have expressed -- either explicitly or by proxy -- the lack of cohesion from the various personal definitions of incivility. Therefore, I have amended to the resolution that a quorum of 2 uninvolved administrators are needed to block Ottava Rima, and that any discussions regarding the editor's conduct start here (at AN/I) and are acted upon quickly. Thusly, the wording has been changed:

Should Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) make any edits which are judged by two uninvolved administrator at the incidents noticeboard to be disruptive or unseemly (including personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or incivility), he may either be blocked, or banned from the affected set of pages for a specified duration. Any page bans will take effect once the administrator has posted a notice to his talk page and logged it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Community sanction/Ottava Rima.

The lack of decorum during this discussion has been noted. Any editor who is involved in a conduct dispute with Ottava Rima is likewise subject to a quorum of 2 uninvolved adminsitrators when deciding a block.

...This is based on two things:

1. There was a preference for the alternative, and 2. The original was unilaterally decided -- causing much frustration -- so I think it's best we stick with the alternative.

What say you? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC) The need for 2 admins on other editors within Ottava disputes is to remove the "Ottava is getting special privileges" thing.[reply]

(ec)I think it is better to just leave the original as it is because it is the existing sanction and changing a sanction is a whole new ball game. It is unlikely to be enforced anyway and I agree with your post that this has now gone way past the point of pointlessness. Best to just close it and forget it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. You must be some kind of wizard if that thread stays closed :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try waving my wand - shazzam ---- I doubt it but it's worth a shot :) --RegentsPark(sticks and stones) 03:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took my kids to the circus this afternoon at $80 a ticket and it pales in comparison to the wiki-circus - if only we could somehow monetize ANI .....! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is the kind of capitalism I'm all for :-)
BTW, it looks like it's sticking. I'm gonna take a run at it if it fails, though. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good plan. I'm off to bed! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am really starting to believe in your goon-squad. Abecedare (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RegentsPark. Could you please explain how you decided that the original rather than the alternative (which was discussed in length at the discussion) was the community-consensus approved sanction? I see a clear preference for the alternative over the original. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should respond on the arbcom page. I'm a little busy this morning but should be able to get something in before lunch (tea UTC!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

[3]Are sanctions a "vote" now? Also, many people have pointed out that the sanctions require uninvolved users. Was this taken into account? When you closed the page, did you realize that you posted earlier in it and were thus involved, and only an uninvolved administrator has the ability to close a community sanctions request per the sanctions protocol? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I break it down as follows:

  • SKATER - support
  • SarekOfVulcan - support
  • Baseball Bugs - oppose
  • Malleus Fatuorum - "Both suggestions are silly" - oppose
  • Lara - oppose
  • Folantin - support
  • BWilkins - unknown
  • Master of Puppets - oppose
  • RegentsPark - your involvement
  • Hans Adler - support
  • Akhilleus - support
  • Excirial - support
  • SandyGeorgia - unknown
  • Philcha - states "Only an uninvolved admin should allowed to rule on an sanction - on any editor" so falls under oppose (and an oppose for you closing the sanction and ruling on it)
  • Moreschi - unknown
  • iMatthew - oppose
  • rʨanaɢ - unknown "So if this discussion yields a unified result then maybe that can be called a "community sanction", but the one in place now holds no water"
  • TenOfAllTrades - support
  • Black Kite - oppose
  • S Marshall - oppose
  • Antandrus - support
  • 4wajzkd02 - support
  • user:J - support
  • Ssilvers - support
  • Will Beback - support
  • JohnWBarber - support
  • ChrisO - support
  • jbmurray - support
  • Until It Sleeps - support
  • ChildofMidnight - oppose
  • Tarc - oppose
  • John - support
  • Jeni - support
  • Wikidemon - support
  • Fritzpoll - no consensus/oppose - "sanctions are to be imposed based on a consensus of uninvolved editors (see WP:BAN -will check this is the right link), with many of those favouring a ban expressly indicating that they have had negative interactions with him"
  • HalfShadow - oppose "Would all of you kindly shut the fuck up, please?"
  • Protonk - oppose per HalfShadow
  • SMC - oppose per HalfShadow
  • SB_Johnny - unknown but "I find it absolutely ridiculous that Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Ottava Rima remains a redlink while there are apparently so many people willing to bitch about him ad infinitum. WTF is the issue? If you all have so many things you want him to change about his behavior, why not just open a doggone RfC and let him know? Are you scared of him or something? You needn't be."

18 supports, 14 opposes, and other comments with many pointing out that restriction standards nullify many of the supports.Ottava Rima (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Ottava Rima restrictions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Ottava Rima (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reddy

[edit]

You asked for it :) I removed English language, Ireland etc from the Reddy article per our discussion at WT:INB, now there's the edit war on the article, and I've also been called a low-level untouchable too. Semi-protection? cheers.-SpacemanSpiff 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, didn't know if the mix of OR/PA was sufficient for a block, so figured semi-PP might be more appropriate, but then that's overkill for one IP too. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Chennai .... the ultimate insult! I think he'll be back in a few days so, if he does return in the form of a troll, let me or Abecedare know and we'll slap on a long block. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I might just have to give you an NPA warning :) Actually, if the chap had used Madras instead of Chennai, I might have taken it better! -SpacemanSpiff 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Socratic Barnstar
For not allowing the clear stream of reason to lose its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (A sudden feeling of Lawrence of Arabia passes over me .....!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20 Stock Exchange Place

[edit]

I noticed you made an edit to a move request on the "20 Stock Exchange Place" article. This article was mistakenly moved to this page from "City Bank - Farmer's Trust Company Building", the building's original name. In an effort to make the article more accurate, an editor tried to move it to its current name, but, got it wrong. The current name is "20 Exchange Place", there is no "Stock" in the name. I tried to move it myself, however, because there is already a "20 Exchange Place" page (which only served as a redirect), Wiki won't let me move the page and says I need an admin to do it. Do you have any idea how to correct? ButtonwoodTree (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Wonder why the time stamp was messed up? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving it. I didn't notice the stamp was wrong. That's odd. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Narayan

[edit]

I would like to nominate R. K. Narayan for Featured Article status and would like your opinion on the article, and how it can be improved to meet the FA criteria. Can you provide feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/R. K. Narayan/archive1? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But next week! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 05:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

[edit]

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

[edit]

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on theMattisse case or the associatedclarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions

[edit]

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK 13:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

raw + or council of foriegn relations

[edit]

say that again

Mughalnz (talk)raw + or council of foriegn relations Mughalnz(talk)

[edit]

say that again i still don;t get it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 03:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. If you are referring to your edits on State Sponsored Terrorism, read the discussion on India and the BLA on the talk page. The general consensus was that there were no reliable independent sources (and the council of foreign relations article was included in that list of non-reliable non-independent sources). I suggest you either find some new sources or just move to another area on wikipedia. There is plenty of stuff to do around here. I apologize that I haven't had the chance to look at your other edits but I promise I'll get to them in a couple of days.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok sweet  —Preceding unsigned comment added byMughalnz (talk • contribs) 03:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use ofSecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in theSecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse

[edit]

Hi RegentsPark, I have given Mattisse a warning not to post any form of comment on another Wikipedia editor without first getting advice to make such a comment. I have started a discussion on G guy'stalk page. Your views are welcome and requested. SilkTork *YES! 09:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

[edit]

Regarding Education in India stats

[edit]

dear RegentsPark, if you don't read carefully what I added into the page, please don't make comments on it and delete my contribution base on your careless flaws, I have referenced the site iloveindia.com as a source from my research on a comparison essay between education in india and korea, I require your apology and change back the information of the page to what I have edited, furthermore, please read carefully before you proceed to any actions next time. Your carelessness is very stupid, and please don't judge on other people's contribution without even read through their edition and reference site. Thank you Ted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted chou12 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I took another look at the iloveindia site and it is still not appropriate to use it as a reference. Please seeour reliable source policy for what qualifies as an includable source. Thanks! --RegentsPark(sticks and stones) 12:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another

[edit]

Passing on what Nichalp had once given me.

The Order of the Upholder of Wiki
I Fowler&fowler, award RegentsPark this barnstar for upholding wikipedia's core goals and values.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - though undeserved :) You're the one who upholds the wiki. Now I've got to figure out something else for you (once I figure out how this whole barnstar things works!--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think both of you deserve this. I admire you both. Best wishes, —mattisse (Talk) 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mattisse. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Amanat

[edit]

Further to your semi-protection of Omar Amanat, Talk:Omar Amanat has now twice been used by IP numbers for the purpose of harassment of one of the editors concerned in the page. My feeling is that this justifies having semi-protection of the Talk page also; and possibly a longer term of semi-protection (my initial request was for a week). Please leave me a note on my usertalk if you need to discuss this further. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have semi-protected the talk page. I'm also going to extend the article semi-protection for a month. Let's take a look after that. Thanks and regards. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

[edit]

Since it's been ~10 days since Peaceful Protest Movement and 1987 Disputed State Elections were redirected, and no one has attempted to rename them/convert them to stand-alone articles, I have gone ahead and deleted them as implausible redirects. Abecedare (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds reasonableMughalnz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

[edit]

Romila Thapar

[edit]

I saw your following edit - "For the last time, any text in a BLP needs to be properly sourced. Please find a proper source for 'Marxist historian' before re-adding it" in Romila Thapar talk page. I have added 7 (seven) "proper sources"for the same. Please see Talk:Romila Thapar. -Bharatveer(talk) 12:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comment on article talk page. Thanks! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for your reply.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I clean forgot. I'll get to it tomorrow. Sorry about that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

[edit]
Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough togive me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough toagree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk16:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, did they cut the turkey with a buzzsaw, bones and all (though I don't see too many bones)? Disgusting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two AfDs?

[edit]

Hi there, For some reason, the Indian rebellion of 1857 page had fallen off my watchlist, so I hadn't really paid much attention to it for almost a year. I noticed yesterday that a "novel" Recalcitrance was listed in the See alsos. That led me to its author, Anurag Kumar's page. Both pages, in my view, are likely candidates for AfD. The author is an engineering professor at Bangalore, .... Not sure if that alone, or his fellowships, for example "fellow of IEEE" (of which there are thousands), qualifies him for Wikinotability. Similarly, not sure that Recalcitrance belongs either. Will defer, of course, to your take. (Also, it could be a big time sink. So, various tags might be just as effective.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, disregard the message above. Recipe for more time wasting. The tags should be enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chandralekha

[edit]

There was an article at Chandralekha first, and then one editor redirected the article to a movie of the same name, and then some others converted it to a dab. I was searching for Chandralekha today and found out this absurd history. I created a new stub -- Chandralekha (dancer). Clearly, she's ultra-notable and deserves the primary. Do I need to take this up for a page move discussion or can someone do the change, given the history of the primary title? cheers.-SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need a page move discussion for this. Just add your move to the WP:RM 'uncontroversial requests' section and it will get done (unless someone objects to it, in which case you'll need a move discussion).--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP for [User:Zhanzhao]

[edit]

Hi just wanted to check with you, you mentioned that my page was already protected, but according to the protection comments the protection expired a week back on 23rd Nov, which is why the most recent attack occured. Is there some other protection that I'm aware of? Thanks in advance foryour reply. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I looked at User:Zhanzhao which is protected till 10th February, saw the protection notice on your talk page, and assumed it was for the same duration. I've protected your talk page as well till February. Sorry about that.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

[edit]

Canvasing: Reply

[edit]

I have cleared my view about this allegation on User talk:Abecedare#Canvasing. I have tried to revert all my posts, plz revert any left post if they come into your notice. By the way the User who has voted for Keep of theRecalcitrance at Articles for deletion was never contacted by on this issue.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 16:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Your intentions are obviously in the right place and, in the final analysis, that's all that really matters! BTW, if you can find an ISBN number for the book and a review in a reputable Indian source, I'll switch to keep.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff's RFA

[edit]

Step 0 done. Please add in your co-nom statement whenever you get the chance - if you do it before I add mine, I can perhaps even copy some bits. :-) Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have consensus! Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may tweak a bit, but am essentially done with my nomination statement. Hopefully, you'll cover all the stuff I missed, but let me know if there are any glaring errors in my part. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'll add mine over the next hour or so.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done with my answers, too sleepy now, so I'll transclude sometime tomorrow morning. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note regarding RfD tags

[edit]

Heya, just a quick comment regarding the page Lord Byron, pagehist link: [4]. The RfD tag is needed for tracking purposes according to its documentation, however you can achieve the same result you did by simply moving the RfD tag so that it is the second line. This will cause the page to continue to redirect as normal, but still allow tracking. To clarify:

#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]
{{rfd}}

This will not cause the redirect to stop working, but will still categorize the page for tracking purposes, which is more effective than simply removing the RfD tag before close. Hope this helps, and if it doesn't actually work I apologise, as I messed about with the sandbox to find this out. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The way it was initially set up didn't make sense to me but this does!--RegentsPark(sticks and stones) 11:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V. S. Srinivasa Sastri

[edit]

Could you please help me improve the quality of V. S. Srinivasa Sastri article and get it through the GA-process. I don't think I will be able to visit Wikipedia as much during the next few days.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 15:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

state sponsored terroism

[edit]

Pakistan section -london bombings has an is an unreliable resource one opinion from a guy who just has Phd in economics is it reliable just asking .A degree irelavant to this type of terrorism do agree to remove the link .

Pakistan section -by saying pakistan palying role in 9/11 attack but not saying U.S did not pursue this it pushing pov -so agree to add that u.s did not pursue Paksiatn role in the event.

Pakistan Section - furthmermore by saying sated by council of foriegn relations it allow section to use it vice versa and was deleted when i tryed to use it in paksitan section is this pov and told was pushing pov.(maybe i used in the wrong context) .[1]-

so if allowed in the Pakistan section then it is allowed in the Indian Section

Pakistan section -by saying there has been miliatnts camps in Pakistan adimistered kashmir and trained-then it alowed to be said that were tamil tiger miltant training camps in Tanmil naidu in india and tamil tigers were and equipped by the indian miliary and raw their were also militant camps in Rajasthan ,Punjab ,Indian Administered kashmir etc- i got relible resources to prove this, first want to get your opinon http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl1424/14240260.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/india/raw.htm

Pakistan -by saying experts link Pakistan involvement in checneyan conflict , if this correct then allow other section expert belive india invloment in balochistan and terrosin in Pakistan, Sri lanka .(once again this was detlted wheni added -council forign realtions. (maybe i used in the wrong context).[2]

Both Indian and Pakistan section -Pakistan and India have history of conducting and supoorting terroism in both respestive country since 1980's - got resourse -(and blame each other especially when there is no evidence to prove it was eihter country )http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/india/raw.htm

Mughalnz (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Mughalnz (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mughalnz (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Regentspark. is there a WP policy for dealing with editors who try to edit English wikipedia but lack basic knowledge of English language.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to my knowledge. An editor with rudimentary skills in the English language is welcome as long as they edit in good faith. Any particular reason for asking?--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know they infomation has to be written in WP( i had limited time to write i was in a rush ) -but you can still understand what being said in in this section eventhough with the grammar and spelling mistakes and slang .Do you dispute what i written in this page, this was what i was trying to ask you .The reason why I asking you this is so you would make it npov and thus not revert my edit later on ;so we can come an consesus now and not an edit war .Mughalnz (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I clearly agree that an editor must have sound command of english and apologise for the inconvience with grammar,spelling and slang .I clear up the secton now can you please answer my question.Mughalnz (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

[edit]

I was curious to know if you had any legitimate reason for reverting my edits. I am very frustrated with you and your lack of incivility. Caster33 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean 'lack of civility :). (Incivility was certainly not intended.) Generally, for claims like precocious you need to provide a reliable and meaningful source. For example, a source that provided Stanford-Binet scores, or a psychologist's evaluation report, or, though this is weak, a report from a head of school would do. Using a quotation from an unidentified person is not reliable enough for direct inclusion in an encyclopedia. Finally, using the example to illustrate the point is a bit of WP:OR (since we're talking about OR, trust me on this that many kids would say the same thing -that they need their immunizations - it means nothing). Nothing personal, it's just not encyclopedic material.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC) (Addendum: I think I had framed it well, in terms of academic excellence, though even for that the sourcing is weak.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The sentence was properly cited with legitimate sources that are so far out of this world and so far advanced for your lack of knowledge, it deserves and should remain, please don't revert my edits again. thanks! Caster33 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Re incivility: Is the pot calling the kettle black? Anyway, let's discuss this on the article talk page instead.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that the kettle is pink not black and should remain that way for the rest of its natural born life.--Caster33 (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, RegentsPark, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place{{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Caster33 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The welcome is much appreciated. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

[edit]

Indian vandalism

[edit]

The reason why I am adding the occupued term to indian occupied Kashmir is because of users liek arjun who insist Pakistan occupys Kashmir so I think its only fair to also state the fact that India occupys Kashmir[5] the dif should clarifyBhazan23 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tit for tat? Why do you not remove the indian vandals edits then? why only pick of Pakistani pagesBhazan23 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the reason, it is not a good idea to make changes purely to make a point (see WP:POINT). That'll only get you blocked and what's the point of that? I took a look at the Pakistan-administered Kashmir article and there does seem to be a third opinion that settled on PAK (aka POK) as a part of the lead, but let me look at the history a bit further and get back to you. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok its just that Indians think they can do whatever they please on pakistani pages and get away without any retaliation but there wrong ;-) Bhazan23 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the consensus was to include POK in the later paragraph and not in the first line. I've removed that reference. Always read the talk page and see what consensus says before doing precipitous things!--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that I think you deserve adminship for your Neutrality unlike the many biased indian admins running wild on wiki peace out Bhazan23 (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source question

[edit]

can u please direct me Mughalnz (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC) can the indian embassy website used as a resource in disputed kashmir region not sure Mughalnz (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this is one question. Either way, you need to be clearer and need to provide some context here. The name of the article, the statement you wish to source, that sort of thing. Thanks. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In pakistan Administered Kashmir page - and Indian administered kashmir( or jammu and Kashmir)


http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/kashmir/Kashmir_MEA/Northern_Areas.html —Precedingunsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk •contribs) 00:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Pakistan-administered Kashmir page the reference is used to support an administrative feature of the Northern Areas. While there are probably better references available, I'm not sure that the information is so controversial that the reference is suspect. Do you believe that the information itself is incorrect or are you just concerned with the sourcing? I couldn't find the source in use on the J&K article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 question -where on the talk page i can't find it can you direct me ( global security not a realiable resource) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question at all. Which talk page are you talking about and what do you mean by 'global security not a realiable resource'? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]

Hello RegentsPark, as one of the parties involved before ( you had given aOutside opinion ), I would like to request your comments in the Ramakrishna article here : Talk:Ramakrishna#Request_for_comments. The same issues related to book reviews and sexuality has cropped up (again!). Pls share your comments. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Motion's regarding Mattisse

[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be foundhere

  • Mattisse (talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
  • Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.
  • Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to Mattisse (talk · contribs) and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose. Modified by next two motions.
  • "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
  • User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Annoucement

vandalism on indian history page

[edit]

someone has deleted the indus civilisation on the Indian history page Mughalnz (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Mughalnz (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it has been already taken care of ,sorry for the hassleMughalnz (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and thanks. BTW, I removed the South Asia from the introduction text on Indus Valley Civilization and then noticed that you had added it. It doesn't make sense to put both names and technically it is the geographic Indian subcontinent that was the site of the civilization (not the political entity).--RegentsPark(sticks and stones) 03:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

[edit]

Mattisse Alerts Page

[edit]

I have created the alerts page with a simple placeholder. I was unsure on the format to be used and having queried with an arbitrator there is no simlar page to base it off and I was told that its probably down to the mentors to build the page. Ill be more than happy to lend a hand if you wish. Ping me if you do. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ RAW: India's External Intelligence Agency - Council on Foreign Relations
  2. ^ RAW: India's External Intelligence Agency - Council on Foreign Relations
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark/Archive_7&oldid=1166521814"