![]() Issue 33 - December 2009
| |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Alan16 ( talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Regents, fancy seeing you here! Oh, this is your talkpage. Listen, I've been involved in Tarati, God knows why--do you know what the proper template is for an infobox? There seems to be no "villages of Pakistan," and I don't want to pick the wrong one. Your help, as always, is greatly appreciated. Toodle pips, Drmies ( talk) 19:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk| WikimediaUK 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The term British India was quoted by Parliament of Britain. The term was never accepted by India, its derogatory to Indians. India was never part of Britian, it was ruled by British. I would like term to be changed to British rule in India or British ruled India where applicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.96.104 ( talk) 15:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
... to you, and thanks for all the work you and your fellow mentors have done supporting Mattisse this year. -- JN 466 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 18:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Greetings of the Season | |
A merry good morning I wish you, My friends both great and small. When the world, for his fare, shall press you, may you n'er go to the wall. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
As our resident mediator on British-India topics, couldn't you have jumped in a bit sooner at Talk:Company rule in India and Talk:East India Company, and saved me much effort ?! PS: Does, asking someone skiing the Alps to break a leg bring them good luck or bad ? ;-) Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Just thought that you might like to know that I quoted you in a 3O opinion.
See
User_talk:OrangeDog#regpkqt. Regards,
TRANSPORTERMAN (
TALK)
16:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear RegentsPark, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).
Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki!
HJMitchell
You rang?
20:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi RegentsPark,
Radiantenergy ( talk) 21:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hope you had a great time in Europe. When you find it convenient, could you take a look at British Raj, where the same editor user:Eraserhead1 is looking to add material. My memory of the page is that there was some concern that the history section was too long and that the first two subsections of it, both about prehistory, should be majorly pruned. Unfortunately, I am still traveling and won't have much time until after the third week of January for even routine editing, much less ideological battles. So, if you can add your input there, it would be great. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I want to second the thanks above by JN 466, and express my appreciation to you for continuing to serve as my mentor/adviser. I seek to fulfill your expectations and not to let you down by poor behavior. Wishing you a very wonderful New Year. Warmest regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 16:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I have sent you an e-mail. -- Tenmei ( talk) 07:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to suggest that if you wish to discuss relevance and content of the german article with me, we do it on the articles discussion page instead of the Noticeboard for India-Related Topics. Hope that is fine with you. Sas2009 ( talk) 23:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I think its been a long time since we talked. When you find it convenient, pls have a look at National Institute of Technology, Srinagar and tell me how can I improve its rating. Thanks and wish you a happy new year 2010. Rohit Reddy™ ( talk) 03:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey- this is regarding this decline at WP:RFPP. Per guideline at WP:BLANKING, whois templates, blocked templates (while the user is blocked), and declined unblock notices (again, while blocked) are to remain. My general rule is I'll reblock the user with talk page access revoked if they've "abused" it more than once- that gives them a chance to cool off and/or read what is being said without revoking it needlessly. Anyhow, that's just my take. tedder ( talk) 07:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, RP, the Signpost is looking for someone to write the Arbitration reports (see this week's from the editor and previous arbitration report). Interested? — Athaenara ✉ 23:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could help me answer a question. What does it mean when someone who edits a wikipedia article states he considers himself "involved" and what does it mean to "stub an article"? any advice you can give would be appreciated. 189.38.250.30 ( talk) 22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I have a little bit more to do and then a copy edit to finish (on hard copy) then implement; and after that I intend on taking it to PR, and probably splitting off the history section as a daughter article if people feel that needs to be done. Then GA, and later in the year if I can get out there and take some more pics I think it could be FA material. We'll see. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take the lead for now. If you'd like to pick the next WikiProject and start looking for editors to interview, that would be great. I've listed some WikiProjects that have recently started up, but you're free to choose something else if none of these sound interesting:
I'm almost done with next week's report, so the new report will be for the week after (January 25). - Mabeenot ( talk) 04:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Just as trivia: Besides the Punjabi cultural influence the language and aesthetics of early "Hindi" cinema was also greatly affected by Parsi theatre (a red link - ironic, isn't it!). Abecedare ( talk) 19:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
do you see as a problem w/using The American Jewish Historical Society as a source?
Also, the better course if you cannot get a link to work is to put in a dead link template, rather than to delete it. That, among other things, allows bots to find the original and replace the existing w/the archived original. Deleting dead links just because they are dead interferes with that process, and is therefore a deprecated approach.
Thanks, and happy new year.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Offer accepted and appreciated. Best wishes for a happy new year.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is propaganda, one-sided, skewed in its very title.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at
Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at
New York University;
sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Im posting this for records keepin, case progress: [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.162.212.225
Don't worry about having to put an article together for next week. We can work on it together. I just thought you'd like to pick the project. Burma and Hudson Valley may have limited appeal to people outside Southeast Asia and New York, but either one would work. I noticed you're involved with WikiProject Novels which is another possibility. There's also the option of doing a newly founded project like WikiProject Java. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Bonjour Regent,
The history of Monet's page is one of multi daily vandalism/revert/vandalism/revert...
On 14 January, you half-protected the page, [2], but how good can this be if only for three days? The minute the half-protection was lifted, vandalism came back.
Can you put the half-protection back with no limit on it?
Merci d'avance, Frania W. ( talk) 14:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd certainly have the time. Getting the message out to a larger audience would be great. Thanks. Alan16 ( talk) 21:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear RegentsPark,
Thank you for your advice. Even though regretfully I didn't quite follow it, I urge you to freely offer me you council in the future. I did learn from this episode that I do not handle certain situations well and need to identify and then simply avoid those particular situations in the future.
I value you as one of my advisors and hope you will continue to participate actively whenever you see me go astray.
Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello! IMDb is reliable only for hard data of released films - awards, credits, characters, crew etc., but its trivia, biographies etc., are written by users, therefore it cannot be used in such instances. Also, when future films are concerned, it's better to verify the info with other sources ( WP:NFF). Shahid • Talk2me 10:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
you forget Nehru Jinnah and Gandhi helped lead to a independence subcontinent and all accepted divided India in the end
02:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Your article looks great. Thanks for doing such an excellent job and getting it together on schedule. I did a small copyedit and added a teaser for next week at the end (WP Dinosaurs is coming). Would you like to take WP Olympics for the week after next? - Mabeenot ( talk) 05:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Heya, would you please consider this, and possibly this. Cheers, NJA (t/ c) 10:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm probably becoming a pain, sorry! You addressed my concerns (twice now) at WP:RPP for User:Shirik/Commitment. I see it's protected now, but I was hoping for full protection, not semi-protection, because this is something that should never change (as was done with User:Shirik/PGP). Rather than keep spamming WP:RPP I figured I'd pop over here and ask you directly since you had taken care of it twice now. Please feel free to ask if there's any questions. Thanks again! -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
this editor is going around removing well sourced info about Al-qaeda activities in Kashmir from Al-Qaeda as well as Kashmir Conflict article. can you take a look Wikireader41 ( talk) 02:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
G guy set up the page so that discussion is on talk, and the Conclusions and consensus section is not to be used for discussion. Since you started a discussion there, Mattisse logically followed it there, but according to how G guy set the page up, that threaded discussion should be moved to talk. I raised the alert because SusanLesch has put over 500 edits (I think, didn't check) into trying to salvage the article, and she seems very stressed, as obvious by her comments on the FAR. She has been hit three times by a dynamic IP damaging the article, and the timing of the incorrect tagging was unfortunate. An apology on her page might help (I haven't yet checked if that has been done), as she seems to be growing very frustrated. Now, since the threaded discussion is on a page I'm not supposed to edit, I can't add these comments there :) Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It still looks like you all are managing this fine, but I'm curious about which diff I missed on your statement that Mattisse apologized before I filed the Alert. As far as I know, that is incorrect, so I may have missed something. I brought it very quickly to Alerts, as there have been some strange posts on mine and Raul's talk page in the past from SL, and I didn't want Mattisse to find herself in a huge problem that could complicate the FAR, particularly since SL was already frustrated about the dynamic IP. (I've got a cold, but you can search my talk archives or Raul's to see what I'm referring to.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
You salted Alejandro (song), but then they went ahead and created Alejandro (Lady GaGa song) instead. Any chance you can salt that as well? Thanks. Nymf talk/ contr. 18:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) You're right. It should go to AfD. My mistake. I've unprotected both Alejandro (song) as well as Alejandro (Lady GaGa song). -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark,
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 15:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi... the user Ikonoblast moved the article Forward Caste to General Caste without reaching a consensus on the talk page. Could you revert his move and start a " request to page move section", so that everyone will be able to give their opinion? Thanks. 122.177.221.149 ( talk) 05:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
iBen can't do the WP Olympics feature for next week. Would you be willing to take that one and he'll do the following week instead? - Mabeenot ( talk) 04:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
This was the response to my adding the wording you suggested: bugger all to do with a "spirit of cooperation" Does this not seem to be an example of article ownership? It seems that if an opinion is given on whether or not one thinks an article is appropriate for TFA, the article's editor takes personal umbrage. Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 21:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a constant stream of vandalism/edit-war on pages such as Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi & RAGS International. I've tried to make both pages to a level of satisfaction for all users and freely invited editors to make contributions to make the article better. It is a redirection to other pages, but Falconkhe constantly redirects the page to another article. He's been requested more than a dozen times to discuss it on the discussion page for any improvements or constructive edits, but to no avail. Please help :) -- Nasiryounus| Talk 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirpur,_Azad_Kashmir
are you able to unblock page and revert the edits when you ahve time Mughalnz ( talk) 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, when is my 48 hours up, as I would like to comment on other (unrelated) subjects on the page I was banned from for 48 hours. Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
When you get a chance, please add your next WikiProjects to the table iBen created in the Signpost newsroom. There's no rush on the later ones, but we'd like to know the Feb 15 topic before Ks0stm finishes the Olympics report so we can include a teaser about your article. If you're still really busy in RL, feel free to swap weeks with my WikiProject Java. - Mabeenot ( talk) 06:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, it'd be an honour. Graham 87 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello! For your March 1 WikiProject Report, the Signpost commitee has suggested that you do WikiProject Severe Weather to kick off the start of tornado season in the Northern Hemisphere. Hope to see you in a Signpost slot again, Belugaboy535136 contribs 00:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi RegentsPark. Pretzels set up a new workspace for us at the Signpost called the WikiProject Desk. The suggestions section, schedule chart, and discussions have all been relocated there. You can continue to conduct interviews in your user space or create a subpage to the WikiProject Desk if you'd like it to feel more official. I noticed you changed yourself to "backup" so I'm sure real life has gotten busy for you. How often would you like to write reports? - Mabeenot ( talk) 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark/Archive 8 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 09:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse tried to edit at some point while blocked, and that triggered the autoblock of her IP address. You then unblocked her account, but the underlying autoblock needed to be undone too. In future, you can go here, and enter the account name. It then searches for autoblocks. I can't remember whether it undoes them automatically, or whether you have to click something else, but it's all obvious once you enter a name that an autoblock applies to. Hope this helps. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I hope the persecution stops now. Please. I can take no more of this ugliness. Perhaps I will start storing up diffs for any arbitration coming up. Hope that is not illegal and blockable. It probably is as I got punished for doing so before. Otherwise, I will be doing no more editing on wikipedia in article space, dyk etc. I have inquired as to how to modify the plan. I now realize that the mentors/advisers are not familiar with it and are not applying the graduated warnings as specified. They seem to go straight to the block. A very demeaning and unproductive situation that only engenders ill will. At the moment I have no desire to contribute to Wikipedia. Very different from the pre arbitration days when I was an enormously productive editor. I doubt I ever will be again. The desire is gone. — mattisse ( Talk) 22:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
If you will have me back, I will help you with the Graham67 interview as planned originally. I would sure like to see him get an interview and he is an interesting guy and deserves recognition. Also, he expresses himself well. Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 19:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Please help me protected this page by the following non stop changing I.P. address:
189.164.88.207
189.164.86.232
189.164.154.72
189.164.97.160
189.182.25.226
189.182.30.51
189.164.84.85
189.182.24.12
189.164.93.129
189.164.163.139
and many more...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryGD ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for very helpful information on WP:AN or, better still, WP:AN3 or WP:RFPP). Best Wishes. - MaryGD ( talk) 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryGD ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm puzzled. Isn't the interviewer... you? -- Dweller ( talk) 16:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, looks like the two of us were editing Pellegrino's article at the same time in regard to his Hiroshima book.
I merged what you had written with what I had written and was trying to post at the same time as you. I hope the results are satisfactory. Sincerely, -- Skb8721 ( talk) 05:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey there - it was nice to try the unprotection, and it's never a bad idea, but I'm prepared to reapply the semi soon. I'm afraid there will be uncaught vandalism after only a day or two. And even though page viewing from Dec '07 → Feb '10 has gone down about 24%, and the level of activity it still quite high and I seriously doubt the level of vandalism will ever improve until she becomes less of a pop icon. Just letting you know, cheers, Jamie S93❤ 23:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I have posted my rational. But, the other party who kept repeatedly calling all my edits non-consensual have yet posted anything yet, though the person is active on the Wikipedia. What would come next? Aditya( talk • contribs) 05:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, America Bazar, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America Bazar. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Favonian ( talk) 11:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I took the liberty of changing an archived discussion at Talk:Daśāvatāra, because it wasn't clear to me that everyone was in fact discussing the same thing. (And there was no discussion at all, just "votes".) I hope this doesn't offend you. Regards, Shreevatsa ( talk) 00:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
As per your closing remarks on the move, so initiated Talk:Daśāvatāra#Move_to_which_name: a vote to select a non-diacritic name. I leave it to you to close the vote and move the article, when if you there is a sufficient consensus. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Third Opinion Award | |
For being the fourth largest contributor to the Third Opinion project (and in a period of only seventeen months, at that). Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 17:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks! I figured that since you made the award, and have given a hefty number of third opinions, you should be the first to get it! -- RegentsPark ( talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello RegentsPark,
Thanks for moving Tyson the Cyclops to Tyson (Percy Jackson). It's definitely a better name. The talk page, Talk:Tyson the Cyclops, needs moving, too, to retain its history. May you please address the issue when possible? Thanks, Airplaneman talk 03:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you move protect the Orissa/Oriya related pages recently moved by Bishupriyaparam ( talk · contribs) ? I already moved them back, and perhaps am uninvolved, but prefer to pass the buck... Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 16:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
With regard to wp:ANI#Request to remove unjustified indefinite protection of List of male performers in gay porn films, the discussion has been quickly side-tracked and de-railed. I was considering raising a RfC on the talk page of Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films, though I suspect that the same folks will attempt to confuse any discussion, it might be more successful. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed considering the relevant admin is convinced this is a way of enforcing BLP? Ash ( talk) 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You may not be aware that SHA-1 commitment on your user page is considered broken since 2005. Therefore I would advise you to move to SHA-256 or SHA-512. -- JovianEye ( talk) 17:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on " climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
15:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
As you commented on YellowMonkey's statement on WP:AN I thought I should mention that the schools part of that is now an RfC. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I just want to thank you for protecting the Sarah Jessica Parker article. It's very much appreciated. -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply to Semi-protection Article. Can you tell me how I can protect my changes done to the article as any one can revert back to old version which is Spoiling the Sikh Identity & Violates the NPOV fundamentals of Wikipedia. -- Dilpreet Singh Virdi ( talk) 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for valuable words , Let me put my changes one by one. Moreover, this topic is controversial and in articles reference are misused , Talk from non-Sikh were preferred and moderator is Biased(Check the Discussion Page).-- Dilpreet Singh Virdi ( talk) 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Regents, I'm hoping that you will take a look at Talk:Wizards_(film). I issued a 3O and cautioned both users about the edit war there on the point that I was asked to opine on. The war stopped on that point, but then continued on a related point. I warned them again and put warnings on both of their talk pages ( Sugar Bear ( talk · contribs) subsequently deleted it). It looked like everything had calmed down, with one chunk of information (the one on which I had opined) out and the other in, but then Prosfilaes ( talk · contribs) — the one who was adding the information in dispute — revered again today. Would you consider reverting the todays's edits, fully protecting the page for a week, and issuing such warnings as you may see fit? I'll watch this page for your response? — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 01:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC) PS: If you'll check their block logs, neither of these users is unfamiliar with edit warring. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) (Minor correction 01:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC) - TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK))
The editor Prosfilaes is clearly trying to push his own POV on the article Wizards (film). He removed sourced content and added the opinion of an author whose opinion was already determined to not be notable, and is, in fact, overtly negative and not in any way objectionable (comparing the film itself to "the Nazi propaganda mill"). Your decision to protect the page rather than reverting Prosfilaes' vandalism is absurdly misguided. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 20:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
If you are around can you take a look at the recent edit-warring at the article, and see if warnings/blocks/protection are warranted ? Although I am not a regular editor of the article, I have commented on its content and am probably "involved" at this stage (despite my disinterest in the subject!). Abecedare ( talk) 18:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you should post a note on Okip's talk page that he has been unblocked. He may not be aware of it. I would, but there's enough reasons for me not to. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
[5] I tried to point this out earlier (though not quite so well-worded) and found it to be nothing but banging my head against a brick wall. You might find it easier just to give it up and let NYCJosh and Jrtayloriv have the page and keep it tagged, as they will never allow changes to be made. Soxwon ( talk) 13:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Re [6]. Piano non troppo ( talk) 23:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Kwamikagami ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), has been attempting to rename a series of three articles against since December 2008, and has not succeeded in convincing the community. He took it upon himself just a few minutes ago to once again move the article to Yue Chinese, effectively reversing the move that you made earlier today in line with the talk page consensus - he ironically argues that the move is consensus driven. I believe that he has been acting in violation of WP:UNINVOLVED, and would ask you to please undo his move and to protect it from further moves until clear consensus has been demonstrated. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Regents,
I was rather puzzled by your move without any discussion or explanation. There have been months of discussion, and a Request for Move which was closed with a decision here to move to Yue Chinese by User:Angr, one of two long-standing uninvolved admins at Wikiproject Language. However, a few editors such as Ohconfucius flatly refuse to accept the change. (Angr gives his reasons there, and defends them on his talk page.) Anyway, the path to renaming the article, if they wish, should follow the normal path of discussion and consensus, and there has been no discussion recently. kwami ( talk) 07:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Regents, since I didn't see that you had closed the old RfM, and can't really tell whether you have problems with Angr's closure of the previous RfM or not, I've put the page back until you have a chance to get back to me. kwami ( talk) 08:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: Responded on article talk page. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Barbados Banks.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
00:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, bad phrasing. I completely accept that the cuisine and food of a nation are of paramount importance to a country and its people. My question was "How is Banks beer cultural important to Barbados?". I'm not from the country, so I felt it should be explained as for all I know it was created in Poland and now brewed in Iran. Rather than Banks Beer at sunset, which sounds like an advertisment, It should say something on the lines of "Banks Beer has been brewed in Barbados since 1923 and is the best selling beverage on the island." then it is relevent to the article. FruitMonkey ( talk) 08:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
En mi opinión, el artículo hablaba más del Municipio (Valle de Echo) que de la localidad (Echo), por eso he trasladado. Más tarde quería mejorar el artículo del municipio con algún dato más. CHV ( O mío Buzón de Correus) 19:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You appear to have forgotten to sign the close of the move discussion. You probably should do that. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you please clarify your opposition to topic ban Mathsci? Specifically these 2 questions:
Thank you. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 10:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
OK. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on question 1 :) The way I see it, mathsci is seeing a serious problem of neutrality in the articles in question and, it is his/her observation that a group of SPA editors are at the root of the problem. He has been bringing this to the attention of the community (principally at ANI) and has been getting a vague endorsement of his views with no actionable suggestions. In that sense, there is nothing wrong with his/her bringing the matter up at various forums. Unlike you, I don't see him/her using WQA as a battleground - he/she raised a very specific etiquette issue (comment on the edits and not on the user is a useful adage). My view on who should be given a topic ban (I hesitate to use the word 'sanctioned') is expressed here. Hope this helps.-- RegentsPark ( talk) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
03:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark: You're the boss. As I said, though, Grant and Lincoln are indefinitely semi-protected, and I think this should be too. I think it is a terrible waste of time and resources to allow a lead page like this to be vandalized so easily and watchers to have to be so vigilant. But thanks for your intermediate step of blocking a user. I was suprised to see vandalism from an identified user, but I suppose the person has multiple accounts. Hartfelt ( talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark: Just writing to note that the vandalism continues apace in the Sherman article. I think it is a waste of Wikipedia's money/computer space and of contributor time to allow this. I really think, as you know, that this article shld have the same indefinite semi-protection that the Lincoln and Grant articles have. Please let me know if the time is right to renew my protection request formally. Thank you. Hartfelt ( talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark: In light of your May 22 response, I held off requesting semi-protection, but today's stupidness pushed me over the edge. I confess that I do not understand why vandals are given such leeway while those who contribute constructively and care about an important (featured) article are forced to monitor the article all the time to try to keep it up to snuff. This is rather pushing me away from the Wikipdeia community. Hartfelt ( talk) 00:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
A3RO has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
as I agree with your thoughts left on Tan's talk page. -- A3RO (mailbox) 20:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a least two user to move the page to un-popular name and non-exit name. The most famous one is Kaka12o ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who often use cut and paste move and move them to un-popular title, and he had socketpuppet of Kaka12 ( talk · contribs) and many other (i did not count, but named Kaka11 or something). 210.6.121.21 ( talk) 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
But the "official" name is totally un-sourced and the users keep on move to a unsourced or even not exist name. Likes Tigres de la UANL was moved to C.D. Universitario de Nuevo León but the university name is Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. Common name with reliable source and claimed "Official" name without source, i prefer the former.
But the users is crazy and prefer latter and moved again and again to his name he remember or seems remembered. Another case is Club Atlas and Club América they were had reliable source supported and crazy users keep on move to new name that had no source to support or (Atlas was moved from CF Atlas to fútbol Club Atlas then Futbol Club Atlas but the fact is the name is Club Atlas and went wrong for years. "Club América" was moved to CF América but the officialsite of the club just called himself "Club América" Look at the damm log of crazy move Matthew_hk t c 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the move request, I didn't move the page, but somebody else did. That person didn't close the request, so I've just done it (as the template displayed a request to that effect). That person also didn't clean up the incoming links, so I'm just doing it now. As for 'refactoring' it, if that means that the move request template itself is to be removed, then that's what I've done as part of closing it. If you mean something else, I don't know what it is that you are talking about. Schwede 66 18:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Noble move; I agree to let it rest. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Sikh extremism has grown since the 1990s, with Canada being its center-of-gravity. ( more). Abecedare ( talk) 01:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, your work is appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, can you please reconsider or explain your decline here? This is a well-known case; we've had dozens of incidents of the same type with this user over the last few months. He is on a dynamic ISP, if you block one IP he will just hop to the next. He doesn't care about blocks or about breaking 3RR, because he's indef-blocked anyway. He will never stop reverting, out of sheer spite, until a page is semi-protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I assume that your request on ANI was for the subpage to be archived. That does not seem to have happened. Is it possible for you to get an uninvolved administrator to do so? Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 12:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Pls have a look at the rev history of Salman Rushdie. feels like its protection level must be upped. thanks. Arjun codename024 11:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Arjun codename024 14:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
As you moved Ashoka the great to Ashoka; i would like to invite your attention; to check whether the same rationale applies for Akbar.Rgs. Arjun codename024 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Mootros ( talk) 17:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I've sent you email. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
When I was discussing Mathsci’s possible misuse of tags with you on the talk page for the Snyderman and Rothman article, you explained under what circumstances it’s appropriate to remove these tags:
“Generally, it is better to give the tagger a couple of days to add a rationale on the talk page. If no rationale is added, you can then delete the tag. If the tag is repeatedly added without explanation, then you can alert the WP:AN3 noticeboard.’
Six days after Mathsci had tagged the Mainstream Science on Intelligence article, he still hadn’t provided any rationale for the tags on its talk page, so I removed them. Mathsci immediately added them back, still without providing any rationale, except to say in his edit summary that there’s “still a dispute”. There haven’t been any comments on this article’s talk page, dispute or otherwise, in over six months.
I’d rather not keep removing the tags myself, because when I tried this on the Snyderman and Rothman article Mathsci just keep edit warring to add them back. He also tends to threaten me with being blocked whenever I revert any of his edits, which is annoying. Now that you’ve explained what behavior is and isn’t appropriate while tagging articles, and it’s clear that this situation falls into latter category, is there anything you can do about it? -- Captain Occam ( talk) 13:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Mootros ( talk) 14:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks You for your time. Arjun codename024 07:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it's safe to unprotect now? NW ( Talk) 22:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed no one ever acted on the request for unprotection and the admin didn't comment further. It got auto-archived. Alio The Fool 20:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This user has made 228 content edits in his wikipedia life. I have no idea why has planted himself on WP:BLPN. Nor for that matter why he has reported me on WP:WQA for pointing his unfamiliarity with the way priimary souirces are used on WP> as you he has attempte his own analysis of Jensen's 1969 paper, which I said he was in no poisiton to do (like any other wikipedian). He has twice reverted the two articles History of the race and intelligence controversy and Mainstream Science on Intelligence. His edits and comments (eg about the eminence of Donald T. Campbell) show no awareness of wikipedia editing policies. He has claimed the content I was using was libellous. Please can something be domne to control this editor who is edit warring, forum shopping and appears not to be willing to invest any effort in reading secondary sources? he has made an incorrect judgement about a BLP violation. Edits that are just a little bit out of control and totally ill-informed? Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for protecting the article. I would like to add a citation to the article which I think is not controversial, as it is clearly in line with the current policy Talk:Research_fellow#Non-English_sources. Many thanks! Mootros ( talk) 14:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#user:Kushsinghmd. Mootros ( talk) 19:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
I have requested a move of Punjab (Pakistan) to Punjab (Pakistani province). You may wish to express your opinion on the talk page.
Your comment at | this ANI thread is misplaced. Would you mind not putting it in the middle of the discussion between me and Yworo? Thanks? David.Kane ( talk) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Since you have commented at length on topic bans for SPAs active on race related articles, please see the current Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Race and intelligence. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 07:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Regents Park hi. I have requested protection of Mayawati again. The edit warring is massive. Please assist. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 17:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's ok. Elockid did it. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Pls see Talk:Pratap_Singh_of_Mewar#Requested_move - uncontroversial. Arjun codename024
Regents, would you please take a few minutes to look at the edit war, incivility fest, and all–around brawl that's going on at Nicola Blackwood. I opined there, then warned both of them about personal attacks and they both just keep after it and complain to me about each other. Thanks, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 21:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Can u pls have a look at the latest developments at Hemant Karkare - i strongly feel they are WP:FRINGE; more so sources furnished are twocircles.net, hardnewsmedia.com etc. Just thought you would be the ideal guy for this. Arjun codename024 07:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is a query from an anon i received on my talk page; I thought its better to forward it to you since i do not know really know anything about the sock puppet stuff.
The following users are probably sock puppets:
They are edit-warring on the article in tandem. Perhaps you should file a sock puppetry report and also put a complaint at WP:RFPP. 117.194.197.61 ( talk) 23:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Arjun codename024 10:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the move. NickCT ( talk) 17:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello RegentsPark. While I appreciate your help in moving things forward, you have closed a discussion on this page move, I feel, too hastily. Given the easily hundreds of hours that have gone into the discussion, just on the move itself, let alone during what clearly was a 3 year long battle on the page itself, it is difficult to imagine that you might have adequately considered, much less fully appreciated the depth of the issues discussed, in one hour of study for your closing. The reason I say this is that it took me almost 2 months to understand what had happened after I started working on that page this past April.
One point that you have clearly not addressed is the fact that the phrase 'tree shaping', which was arbitrarily and capriciously chosen in the first place, off the discussion page and completely without consensus, is itself not at all neutral. Your closing explanation seems to conflate the trade name Pooktre, with the phrase used to re-title the page. Pooktre is an established trade name of the questionable editors. It is not at all generic, nor in common usage, and is thus not under any consideration as a title for the page. Clear consensus was already reached that the current page title is unsatisfactory. We have carefully and clearly documented, concerning the phrase 'tree shaping' that:
I do understand that it is entirely your option to re-list or not, and to move or not, based on the strength of the arguments for & against, but do you not think, given the consensuses that were reached by non-involved editors and also given that the discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, that relisting would have been more appropriate in this case?
I agree with Martin Hogbin that a closing discussion is needed to reach further consensus. Without one that is satisfactory to all participating editors, and not just to the one involved editor who precipitated the original and very suspicious change, I feel that the editing atmosphere on that page is unlikely to improve and thus that the page itself is likely to suffer, not least in terms of content dilution. A page titled 'tree shaping' can no longer describe the specific and fascinating art that the article content presently describes (and which is and has been for many decades practiced by those artists detailed therein), but must instead also encompass fully all the myriad other arboricultural practices inherent in the actual activities of shaping trees. There would be no reason (or space) in such an article to include any of these inosculation artists, or their craft, at all. See? Duff ( talk) 11:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
i strongly disagree with your removing of sourced material: there is a reliable source, in the form of a book (Who killed Karkare ?). Even if sockpuppets have shown up there, I was mainly responsible for the section. Please also note that the IP that asked for deletion (117.194.197.61)was probably a sockpuppet of indef banned user Hkelkar. For these reasons, I strongly demand you revert to my edited version. We can discuss and change it according to contradictory sources, but certainly not remove it. Thanks. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 18:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | The allegation that sections of and individual Indian Muslims indulged in “terrorism” surfaced for the first time with the ascent of the Hindutva forces in mid-1990s and became state policy with the BJP’s coming to power at the Centre. With even “secular” media joining the role as stenographers of security agencies, this became an accepted fact so much so that common Indians and even many Muslims started believing in this false propaganda. | ” |
“ | It comes out with some startling facts and analysis, the first of its kind, to expose the real actors behind the so-called “Islamic terrorism” in India whose greatest feat was to murder the Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare who dared to expose these forces and paid with his life for his courage and commitment to truth. While unearthing the conspiracy behind the murder of Karkare, this book takes a hard look at some of the major incidents attributed to “Islamic terrorism” in India and finds them baseless. | ” |
“ | Terror's Hindu Face: Todays's ie, 18th May 2010's Asian Age's Delhi Edition devotes a full page to the hitherto well hidden from the public gaze and long suppressed by the media, Hindu Terrorism. | ” |
“ | A new book curiously titled Who Killed Karkare? says a nationwide network of Hindutva terror that has its tentacles spread up to Nepal and Israel is out to destroy the India most Indians have known for ages and to remould it into some kind of Afghanistan under the Taliban. | ” |
[14]. 117.194.193.101 ( talk) 17:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
(od) No one is going to take any hasty actions here. The material on Karkare needs to be thrashed out on the talk page of the Hemant Karkare article first, before it is inserted in other articles as well. I've protected Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks as well until this is sorted out. 2008 Mumbai attacks also appears to be protected. Please sort this out on the talk page of Hemant Karkare before attempting to add this material to other articles. Regards. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 21:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I would ask you to add in the Controversy section yourself, now that it is recognized even by leading journalists like Vir Sanghvi: [21] Now it transpires that even Karkare could have been saved. People have always wondered how the bullets penetrated the bullet-proof jacket he was wearing. The Bombay Police responded by saying that a) he was shot in the neck so the jacket was no protection, b) that the jacket was perfectly good but c) the file pertaining to its purchase had been lost and d) even the jacket itself had miraculously vanished. Cool hindu ( talk) 06:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your involvement with the tree shaping article. (Sorry you ever discovered this article exists? I sure wish I never discovered it!) I'm contacting you because I feel that relevant verifiable evidence about the uses of the word "arborsculpture" wasn't properly reviewed in the recent renaming discussion. Do you happen to know the Wikipedia guidelines about when we would be allowed to bring the renaming issue to formal discussion again? Or is there any restriction on how soon one could formally initiate discussion again? -- Griseum ( talk) 06:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 02:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear RegentsPark,
Could I ask you whether you could easily unprotect the following deleted page: Pixable . I haven been contacted by an editor who has created a credible page on the subject with supporting references demonstrating notability. Please see here User:Elaynekosty/pixable. Many thanks for your help. Mootros ( talk) 17:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I remember you started reverting a user who kept attaccking me personally on the mentioned talk page and finally you bloxked him for a short period, but now going through it I find that in several previous posts he kept attacking me and insulting me by referring to me as Ms Shahida Kumari, etc. I would want these messages to be removed. Should I do it or you would prefer to do it? Shahid • Talk2me 12:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
If you have access to the article in some form, you will see that just 4% of it is devoted to the anti-sikh riots of 1984. Overall, it covers the period from 1978 to present. You will find very little of this material in the anti-sikh riots article. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa ( talk) 19:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I see you also got involved in the case of Dr Mukesh's sock who creates accounts to insult me and stalks my edit history. There's another one - Group all sixty ( talk · contribs). Shahid • Talk2me 22:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thnx for the page protection. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 22:18, 16 July 2010 ( UTC)
RegentsPark, I notice you’ve just used your sysop powers to edit the race and intelligence article through page protection in order to revert one of the edits that led to it being protected. Now, I already know what your explanation for this is going to be—that the “wrong version” of the article was protected—but this is only an acceptable use of sysop powers in the case of simple vandalism. When there is an actual dispute over the content in question, admins should not be using their powers in a manner that is (quite overtly) favoring one side in the dispute over the other.
I’m not involved in this particular content dispute, because I don’t have a strong opinion either way about the content in question. This is only about your use of admin privileges, which I’m bringing up as a relatively uninvolved editor watching the article. I seriously suggest that you reconsider your decision to use your admin powers for this. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 21:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Your actions have been reported here [22]. mikemikev ( talk) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed, looking over the above linked project page, that all restrictions imposed on editors are logged there. Per your closure of this ANI thread, I was wondering if you could add the necessary information to the page.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
(od) I don't see why it shouldn't be logged. Unless there has been a discussion since the one linked to above that changes things? -- RegentsPark ( talk) 02:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the history here, but can you (Daedalus and Radiopathy) both make an effort to leave each other alone, and not further this dispute? Thanks much; I think that would be in everyone's best interest. -- Pak aran 02:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)\
I've logged the restriction with the 1 per day specified (though it is not necessary). Beyond that, I think Pakaran has the right idea. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 03:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You closed the AN/I on Pmanderson a bit early. The RFC is likely to get deleted in a couple of hours by Bishonen. As far as I can figure out, he will close it because I, when asking Pmanderson to not do personal attacks, instead of writing something like "I would like you to not attack other editors", used a template that said pretty much the same thing. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Pmanderson#This_RfC_is_still_uncertified. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
As this is my first involvement in an RfC I'm unsure of the process. We do have the minimum requirements fulfilled by now, but nothing seems to be happening. Is that normal? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(od)(ec)Thanks Xeno. I'm not sure what the practical effects of having the 48 hour rule waived but the RfC 'uncertified' are, but I suspect this is better resolved properly! ncmvocalist is likely the right person to deal with this. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 19:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.
There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session.
Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up
here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark, You first say, “I had to wade through long posts by Hindutashravi before I realized that his/her views (on Hindutash) were not worth any attention whatsoever”. This you have stated after unequivocally stating that, “I'm not even going to pretend to understand where Hindutash Pass actually lies”. Then you have the audacity to say on 20 October 2009 at 18:53 when in fact, I had been endeavouring to arrive at a consensus with John Hill , “In the light of previous discussions, you need to get consensus first and only then modify the article. The fact that you've posted something on the talk page is not enough”. You, RegentsPark had stated that I am “consistent in pushing views on the boundaries of Kashmir which are way beyond WP:FRINGE and he seems to have no other purpose on wikipedia” But When I asked you, “From what you are saying, “The “Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir” only on the basis of “a number of disparate pieces of information” "and the Times Atlas is not a reliable source!”, You do not at all respond. You do not have even iota of shame. When 86.96.226.22 in revision 372726931 endeavoured to create a neutral and comprehensive article blending both the rival versions, you could have none of it and nipped it in the bud and did not permit it to be taken forward for constructive modifications! Now you have the audacity to shamelessly say, “Blocked user attempting to evade block”. My stance is clear in the discussion page, and has not been refuted by the shameless administrators. None of you are accountable and you people can make sweeeping un substantiated allegations against me and do what you please with impunity. Why don’t you “protect” your version of Hindutash just like you have done to the Aksai Chin article? It will save a lot of my time and energy. And, It will also confirm that wikipedia is not "a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site". Hindutashravi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.67.109 ( talk) 05:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(od) Well, good luck. Meanwhile, do note that posting from an IP is block evasion, which is frowned upon. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 17:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Because the source quoted so ranks it; it is one of the few cases (because they comment on it specifically), where it is possible to be sure that they count both states as democracies. Both India and Pakistan were Dominions then, and had unwritten Consitutions after the British manner (as did Canada until the 1970s), but the legislatures on both sides were elected, before Independence, in the knowledge that they would be national legislatures and Constituent Assemblies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Can I take buckup of these articles World Organization for Scientific Cooperation and Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes. Thanks.-- Earth Defender ( talk) 08:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
for realising that there are situations where nothing is going to happen unless somebody does something. -- FormerIP ( talk) 01:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
For reading Pmandersons source on the Kashmir war. Of the sources he uses which are available online he usually gets them wrong them, but I haven't had any chance to check out the other sources. I should probably give you a barn star or something, but I don't really know which one. :-) -- OpenFuture ( talk) 05:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi RegentsPark. I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that I (respectfully) disagree with your apparent assumption that this individual now meets any of the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN and, to the best of my knowledge, will not do so until he actually wins the election or attains considerably more in the way of non-local media coverage than is present. My belief is that we have a responsibility to ensure that articles about political candidates are held to this standard because otherwise we could inadvertently be contributing to electioneering; frankly, I have seen many, many pages where these sorts of assertions of notability are being made by obviously partisan political workers in the hope that Wikipedia's imprimatur will be lent to their candidate. In this case, the article in question actually failed at AfD about 60 days ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Buck, which leads me to suggest (again respectfully) that you may have erred in restoring this page without asking that it be taken through deletion review. May I know your thoughts? Accounting4Taste: talk 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm closing the case as stale, after a week of inactivity; should this dispute flare up again, feel free to reopen without prejudice. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a look and see if protection is necessary? I was involved in a similar issue on the article a while back (with a sock drawer), so I can't take any action. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 07:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
… to thank you for your note, and for your honest good-faith participation on a difficult talk page. Cynwolfe ( talk) 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to flatter, but I have you down as someone smart enough to see that there would be a point in having a definitive external list to de-POV the issue RegentsPark. I suspect that avoiding a load of nonsensical chit-chat, whilst understandable, isn't particularly noble as a motive for doing nothing. :-) In all seriousness though, I view the UN list as being like SI units or something - the UN are the people who approve nation-states and agree to their names, boundaries, etc. Wikipedia should be as bound by that as by the SI standards. It really is unflattering to have UN-recognised country name exceptions governed by who has the most votes (Georgia) or Arbcom people not being able to stand any more rows for a while (Ireland). 15:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 15:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you protect for a few days? Minor content dispute between two IPs that's basically made this a revert garden. I've edited the article before in a similar content area, so I can't take any action. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 14:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The relevant discussion has been moved to Template_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars#.27Indian_freedom_struggle.27 Zuggernaut ( talk) 16:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if you might look at a deleted page history and help me figure something out. In doing hangon patrolling yesterday morning I came across a A7 speedy deletion nomination on Kafani, a musician, and declined it because I confirmed that the article subject had a charted single at Billboard, meeting WP:BAND #2. Since a declined speedy cannot ordinarily be reasserted, I was surprised to see that Esanchez7587 subsequently deleted it under A7. Not being a sysop, I can't look back to see what happened, so I asked Eschanez, but he's apparently choosing not to reply. I'm not asking for undeletion or deletion review or challenging his position, I just don't understand what happened and would like to know if and, if so, how I messed up in declining the speedy. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 13:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't address Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart, but the logic is pretty much the same, I suspect. I think that's enough answer to satisfy me, however. Thanks and sorry to have bothered you. TMMost of the charts in Billboard are either pure sales or radio charts. The only exceptions in which we mingle sales and radio data are two of our signature charts: the Billboard Hot 100 and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs (as well as two charts based on the same data feeds as the Hot 100: the Hot 100's Bubbling Under chart, which ranks the top 25 titles that have not yet reached the Hot 100, and Heatseekers Songs, which reflects the most popular songs by new or developing acts, defined as those who have never appeared as a lead artist in the top 50 of the Hot 100, or the top 50 of Hot 100 Airplay prior to Dec. 5, 1998).
Hello, you participated in a discussion last spring that resulted in renaming The Bronx as Bronx. There is now a proposal to open a new Request for Comments on restoring the original name. If you have comments about the timing of such a proposal, please make them soon at Talk:Bronx#Query: when do we consider this? because, unless a there's a consensus against such a Request for Comments, it will begin early this week. Thanks. —— Shakescene ( talk) 21:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Please remove the protection. or reduce the protection time to one day Ranjithsutari ( talk) 16:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Assuming you've read through all the discussions at ANI and the editors talkpage before you made your decision; And like you pointed out in your wrap-up comment I too hope they will live up to their latest response. My experience with this editor tells me different but AGF should never be dismissed, put aside or even forgotten. I want to express my respect for you finally touching and deciding on a difficult and contentious matter. Best, TMCk ( talk) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi RegentsPark.
I think you should a least give an apportunity for discussion of what Wikid77 has proposed. What he seems to be proposing is that, since he is right and the problem is entirely with the conduct of admins and WP policy, he will campaign to ensure that blameless editors such as himself don't fall victim to this kind of thing in the future and he will write an essay about how to deal with unreasonable and agreesive administrators. Admittedly, he has offered to only launching one discussion at a time but, overall, I find it hard to credit that you have read his bulleted list and reached the conclusion that it adds up to anything.
You say in your summary that a topic ban does not have wide community support, but AFAICT all administrators and uninvolved editors who commented (up until you) supported a topic ban. The only support Wikid77 seems to have got is from within the cluster of SPAs discussed in another ANI thread.
You also say the ban would be excessive because it is over a "one day confusion (or not)" (just for the sake of saying so, it was two days). Which neatly misses the point. It is clear that Wikid77 breached his ban deliberately for some purpose, since he acknowledged the length of the ban a couple of days before breaching it and ignored my querying of him doing so. I don't think it is appropriate to spell out why I think he did this, but I also don't think it is necessary. -- FormerIP ( talk) 18:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
@ RegentsPark. may I suggest that you reevaluate your decision after reading closely through the entire thread (incl. links provided) and do so the same at Wikid77's talkpage, acknowledge that will do so here and then either confirm your first evaluation of the situation or update it if needed? As I earlier, you didn't mentioned or take in account that the editor is still blocked which makes clear that this is not resolved as of the time I'm posting. I'll take the freedom to update the ANI thread by removing the "resolved" tag while pointing to your talkpage for further information regarding this. Best, TMCk ( talk) 20:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't really agree with this. I think it premature to impose a topic ban and believe that you should seek much wider consensus (i.e., community wide consensus) for such a topic ban. Merely writing up a topic ban statement, getting a few supports, should not be an acceptable way to do this. I am aware of the block and have no comment on it and don't see why the topic ban thread (which is what the ANI complaint is primarily about) cannot be dealt with independently of the block. Anyway, if you feel that the discussion should continue, then que sera sera. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 22:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is fairly obvious that we differ on this. As far as I'm concerned, the topic ban is premature. You people, who are all clearly involved in the murder of meredith kercher (the article, I mean) feel otherwise. The ANI thingy is still unresolved. I'm not sure what point you all see in continuing this discussion here but feel free to keep commenting. :) -- RegentsPark ( talk) 23:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, Wikid77 wasn't blocked because of breaking his topic ban two days early, he was blocked because by doing so, he immediately resumed the kind of disruptive editing that led to his three months ban, and coincidentally, is at the root of his entire block history. Beyond the immediate disruption on the articles around the Knox case, he has also been an active voice in coaching two (or three) other users, PhanuelB ( talk · contribs), PilgrimRose ( talk · contribs) and Zlykinskyja ( talk · contribs) (those last two might be one and the same) into escalating the dispute - a review of Wikid77's interventions on PhanuelB's talk page while he was under a topic ban should make clear what this is about.
In all of this, Wikid77 has never acknowledged a sliver of responsibility. He could have, over more than a year, been a voice of reason and explained all the partisans who popped up at the article that the best way to get heard and to learn how Wikipedia works is to tune down the rethoric and listen. He never did, on the contrary, he has, without fail, done everything to inflame.
Wikid77 does good work on other parts of the encyclopedia, but the Knox affair is toxic to him just as much as his actions are toxic on it. A topic ban is a way to avoid having to remove him from the project for a long term. Letting him carry on will only lead to a long term block or a full community ban, something that could still be averted by taking the right action now.
MLauba (
Talk)
08:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) Wow! I go away for a couple of days to take care of RL stuff and, lo behold, WP:ANI has moved to my talk page. I hope that was a policy move backed by consensus (but, on the plus side, I can take ANI out of my watch list). -- RegentsPark ( talk) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Regent. I read your edit summary too :) As insane as my poetry was. Wanted to leave a personal note commenting that it was very sweet of you to withdraw your oppose in my RfA. It mattered a ton to me. Thanks again and sincere regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Regents Park, I feel your comment has left out the fact that others have made suggestions, that are also are not getting sufficient traction. Your comment gives the impression colincbn is the only one trying to come to an agreement. I understand this probably wasn't your intention, this is just how it comes across to me. Thanks. Blackash have a chat 04:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant! :) -- King Zebu ( talk) 18:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I've sent you email relating to this. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 13:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry I dragged you into this, but I've withdrawn my nomination. Thank you again for your support, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed here to rename Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Hindutva terrorism, as to be more accurate to the meaning that the terrorism is politically and nationally motivated and not religiously motivated. Please join the discussion. Silver seren C 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You have a new one.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 10:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Should we develop a stand–up routine? I create messes and you come in to clean them up? Or is it the other way around? Best regards, and with all my respect, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 16:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: this - the warning was a result of a request at RFPP for full-protection of Nair. Under the circumstances I felt a warning to both editors was preferable to full-protection. I did note at RFPP that neither editor seemed to have gone beyond two reverts. TFOWR 16:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
16:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Regents, (I'm tempted to call you "Reggie," but then you'd be tempted to call me "Trannie," and I wouldn't like that one little bit ...
) It appears that the content vs. all disputes discussion at 3O is going to stall out with no consensus. Despite the way that I phrased the proposal, I see that as leaving the content restriction in place but I don't want to assert that at the 3O talk page until I make sure that you and I are not going to disagree on that being the result. I'm not saying that a non-consensus result would necessarily result in the content restriction being now firmly established by consensus, but only that it would move us back to the status quo before the discussion arose. Is that how you would see it if there's a no-consensus result? Watching this space, regards,
TRANSPORTERMAN (
TALK)
19:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the article--I just noticed that most edits in the last year, whether coming from a similar IP range or from named accounts, have been the same. Same person appears to have targeted Joe Sestak. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 01:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I would not like you to be put in a situation where your support for me could be misunderstood and "Fighting battles on wikipedia is far from easy when you're up against obdurate editors and POV pushers and PBS does a reasonably fine job in dealing with these editors, IMO." could be taken to mean that you think that SV is an obdurate editor. I know you did not mean it, but that is because I know what sort of editor you are referring to and it is not editors like SV or Tony1. I would suggest that you clarify this with a personal note to her explaining that your words could be misunderstood by less charitable people than her and that you meant, for example the British India issue with editors like User:Xn4. -- PBS ( talk) 21:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I am a little bit surprised by this unblock. The editor's unblock request clearly indicates that he doesn't even understand why he was blocked (he says he was blocked for using the word "misconduct", when he was actually blocked for incivility for for this edit in which he refactors another user's comments (see the bottom of the diff; on top of that, he links to this ANI thread as evidence that user "generally disapprove of" my actions, even though that thread is about his actions and only one user there says anything about mine), so I don't see what makes you think the "user sees the error of his ways". The admin who declined the unblock request also indicated that the user clearly doesn't understand the reason for the block; would you care to explain why you unblocked anyway? Your unblock rationale seems to suggest that you are excusing Pmanderson's refactoring of talkpage comments because I did the same thing to him beforehand, even though he never provided any diffs regarding that (and I just looked through a month's worth of my diffs and found nothing; the only thing coming close was this, which was on someone else's comment and was only formatting).
Also note the blocking admin's message here: "I would like to urge other admins NOT to lessen the block duration this time; I don't see any sign that he "got the message" from any of the prior actions, RFC, warnings, etc. We need to have a sanction that sticks and has effective long term behavior change here."
Anyway, I'm sorry to be a bother, but you were expecting flak on this anyway. Could you please explain your reasons for unblocking a little more clearly? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 13:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
With this editor the tone seems to quickly get personal and "attackish", as I feel it has again in the discussion I just cited above.
I share your optimism about this editor, because my opinion is that he has valuable contributions and opinions to make and share, and does, but he still has trouble expressing disagreement by focusing on content without crossing the line into making derisive comments about those he disagrees with. Not sure it's worth filing an ANI anew, but thought I should bring it to your attention since you unblocked him. Perhaps a warning from you would be helpful? I'm pretty sure a warning from me would not have much if any effect. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, in what I have gathered in my limited interactions with you, I sincerely doubt you would ever make a comment like that about anyone in that context or otherwise. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If you can explain this more successfully than I have managed, please do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Here, by the way, is another example of this uncivil behavior, and PMA's inability or unwillingness to see it, even when pointed out [27] and explained [28]. What might be most relevant here is Kotniski's (unanswered) question, "So why do you say such nonsense, consistently, whenever you and I happen to be on opposite sides of a discussion?". Taking either of these incidents in isolation without the context of previous interactions may make it more difficult to realize what's going on, but I suggest there is a general pattern of saying unsubstantiated "nonsense" like someone misrepresents and disagrees with policy (when it's not true) and "you never do see why an idiomatic and natural distinction should be kept", specifically to disparage those with whom he disagrees. He knows that it just appears to be a normal disagreement, but it puts the other in a bad light. I don't know if it's conscious, but it's sharing opinions about people, not discussing content or arguments, and it needs to stop. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to research the issue raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incorrectly_closed_move_request_at_Cambridge.
I presume we agree there is a big difference between reviewing a challenged decision about a discussion and deciding whether a significant error was made in that decision vs. reviewing the discussion anew without regard to the soundness of the challenged decision. The difference is significant because if challenges to decisions don't review the decision but simply re-evaluate the discussion from scratch, the effect of that is to encourage using the challenge process as a kind of forum shopping. It is my understanding that appeals courts in the "real world" review appealed decisions before "retrying", and only make decisions anew if an error is discovered in the appealed decision. This seems to be done for very good reasons that also apply to Wikipedia. If you don't agree, please let me know.
So, I'm curious as to why in this case you reviewed the discussion, apparently without reviewing the decision itself, much less finding any errors in it. That is my impression since I've been given no indication about what error I may have made in the original decision. I've seen closes reviewed by admins in the past, including my own "non-admin closes of contentious discussions", and I don't believe I've ever seen the earlier decision ignored and the discussion simply re-evaluated as you apparently chose to do in this case.
I'm also very concerned about the judgement that "page hits are not much use in this situation because for all we know, every US city searcher might be typing Cambridge, Mass", which appears to be key to your decision to close as "no consensus to move". By this reasoning "page hits are not much use" in any primary topic determination, because we never know what searchers might be typing. But if that's true, that puts into question countless naming decisions made in Wikipedia since its inception, and continuing to occur every day. I suggest this is a fundamental error in the reasoning, the kind of error I expected the reviewer of my decision to identify if my decision was not affirmed.
Since this decision about the significance of page view counts in primary topic determinations has widespread implications, would you please re-evaluate this decision accordingly, or ask someone else? Thanks. - Born2cycle ( talk) 03:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
That is, in order to comply with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the predominant POV among closing admins has been that those who support having an article at the plain name have the burden to show that that article meets primary topic criteria, regardless of whether the discussion is about moving the article in question to, or away from, the plain name. Thus, if those opposing the move of an article from its current place at a plain undisambiguated name cannot show that it is the primary topic for the name, then the move should occur, regardless of whether those in support can show that that article's topic is not primary for that name.
For example, a few weeks ago I made a closing decision accordingly at what was then Talk:Stockman (now Talk:Stockman (Australia)#Requested_move). As with Cambridge, there was consensus that the topic in question was primary in one country (Australia for stockman; England for Cambridge), but the claim that the topic was the primary use beyond that one country was not shown, so I found no consensus to keep that article at Stockman, despite the majority of those participating favoring that the article not be moved. That decision was challenged, and it was supported by an uninvolved admin here. So I applied the same reasoning at Cambridge.
Don't you agree that if we don't get some consistency on this point about who has the burden in these decisions involving primary topic determination, then we might as well be using a coin toss to decide them? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
You're ignoring my point, which is that your point, the primary topic claim [that the city in England is the primary use of Cambridge] has not been shown to be incorrect, even if true, is irrelevant.
The bottom line in situations where primary topic determination is at issue is not whether the primary topic claim has been shown to be incorrect, but whether the claim has been shown to be correct. If the primary topic claim is not shown to be correct, then the article in question should not be at the plain undisambiguated name. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you weigh in on the discussion going on in the India talk page. We have reached a standstill and could help benefit from your views.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 19:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Regents! Yes, I suppose it looks like I'm completely obsessed with the names of Southeast Asian nations, heh. But the truth is I'm not firmly rooted in any Internet community, per say. A little on Youtube commenting; a little on tvtropes.org. But here, I'm more likely to just cruise articles idly and check my very limited watchlist to see if the naming issue has come up again, or if the Monkey Island game franchise is being misrepresented. - BaronGrackle ( talk) 13:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey RegentsPark!
I just resurfaced on the wp scene. Wow, so much has changed. Congrats on your adminship! (A little late, I know). I was going through my old archives, and found this and this! Wow, I feel old :D!! Amog | Talk • contribs 12:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi RegentsPark:
I saw your comments upon your edit on Taj Mahal. Requesting you to keep the references to temple claims to at least 3 reliable sources (links) - BBC, Stephan Knapp and http://veda.wikidot.com/taj-mahal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskilaar ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello RegentsPark. Your change to the restriction still leaves some '1RR' language in place. Presumably you meant to say '0RR', and with no reverts at all, a 'per day' should not be needed. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that! :P It's 116 St, as I've tried to clarify it.-- Pharos ( talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
So, was
this a violation of
WP:POINT?
Belated thanks for the bon voyage, too. Best regards,
TRANSPORTERMAN (
TALK)
17:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. But why? Problem with sentence phrasing or too much information? -- King Zebu ( talk) 19:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Administrator there is a complaint against you. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this a candidate for RD2? Mjroots2 ( talk) 06:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Someone moved it to "Chapa Rajput Dynasty", which is absurd.Even google book search for it returns 0 result.For more information vist the discussion page- title of article.SO i request you to move it back to its old title i.e Chapa (Gurjara) dynasty.I also request you to add it in your watch-list. Thank you Mkrestin ( talk) 04:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
To be frank, I'm a bit disappointed by your persistent support for YellowMonkey's behavior and actions. I was a bit dismayed when I read your this comment about a month ago but didn't bother respond as I realized that a person like YM didn't deserve a second of my thoughts and efforts and therefore, there was no point in carrying the discussion forward. But after going through the recent discussion over YM blocking Yogesh, I also realize that YM is an administrator with a heavy baggage of bias against India and Indian editors and will use any tactic, including insults and overuse of admin privileges, to quiet those who oppose his viewpoint. Moreover, his tremendous goodwill here gives him an impregnable immunity. For me, that is a bit disturbing.
If other Wikipedians fail to send a strong message to YM, then it is really sad for the future of this project. -- King Zebu ( talk) 17:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Looking forward to more contributions from you!
|
---|
|
This newsletter is automatically delivered by User:Od Mishehu AWB, operated by עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Ever since you were involved in the preliminary discussion on Non-Roman characters in article titles, there has been a separate proposal regarding the usage of Non-Roman characters in re-directs and DABs, and you may be interested in joining the discussions on this page. Your input will be appreciated. -- HXL 's Roundtable, and Record 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Please append the {{Template:ACE2010}}
template to the top of your election guide (User:RegentsPark/ArbVotes2010) so that people can navigate the guides and election pages more easily. Thanks,
Sven Manguard
Talk
05:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Haha! Well, I am woefully short on barnstars
But it's the thought that counts!
On a more serious note, I get really irked by wrongful implications of racism. Just yesterday I was called a telemarketer from Bangladesh by a paid editor from the States. Wikipedia really has no place for this -
Amog |
Talk •
contribs
07:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Mr Regent Park Why you people trying to hide the truth of fact regarding indian revolt of 1857? you dont have right to remove the information which should know to everyone. I condemned your action and suggest you to not to do again without discussion and information. I have already given my views on discussion and to Mr. Knight. Please refer that discussion. I hope you will respect and accept the truth. Regards ( Gurjeshwar ( talk) 03:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC))
Dear Regent
This is the small description which i added on that page, because without that inclusion the real fact can not be come to this world. The indian government and British gazzete tell this story. The revolt which started at Meerut fueled by the Gurjars villagers and policeman. Still Meerut is a majority city of Gurjars. And this is impossible to anyone to revolt without the help of local peoples.
Gurjars of Bijnor were fighting under the leadership of Gurjar leaders Kadam Singh and Dulal Singh. In the whole revolt Gurjars were fighting along with the Muslims. Gurjars in Mathura and Agra region also fought against the British and gave them a horrible period. That is why when the
revolt ended, the properties of the Gurjars were impounded. Gurjars in Ludhiyana, Firozpur, Gujaranwala, Sialkot, Gujarat, Jalandhar district, Kangada revolt against the British and tried to end the British rule but when the revolt failed, the properties were impounded by the British. Hundreds of villages in district Bulandshahar were ruined by the Britishers but Gujjars fought with
full strength. Not only had the Britishers declared Gujjars as criminal tribe by defining Criminal Tribes Act. However, in the freedom struggle of India, Gujjars were working as the main leaders of the Non Cooperation Movement of Mahatma Gandhi in the country.
History states that there were freedom fighters in each and every single Gujjar village of the
country.
So this should be included in this article. Without Gurjars/Gujjars The revolt cant be planned and implemented.
( Gurjeshwar ( talk) 03:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC))
Any chance that someone can fix this for me so that the negative numbers show up as integers? I can't get it to work. :( -- RegentsPark ( talk) 17:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. It seems user
Flobot222 (
talk ·
contribs) is (aggressively) promoting Hindu ideology on Wikipedia (please read what he wrote in his talk page). He's adding unecessary words, sentences in some articles suh as
Aryan, removing refs sentences in others (see
Iranian peoples).
I may mistake but it seems he's a sockpuppet of
Saddhiyama (
talk ·
contribs). Thank you.
Rajkris (
talk)
18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your restoration as being against current consensus. Please see WP:ANI#Usertalk Proposal for discussion. Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.
A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be ' Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying " WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.
This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
22:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :), nice saving of bureaucracy. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you removed your Arbcom guide from the standard template. It still appears in my alternative template at {{ ACE2010alt}} which has no official status. Would you like for me to remove it from there as well? (Or you can do it yourself.) I think your guide is useful but will defer to your wishes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comments and your support in your voter guide, as well as your other thoughtful observations. They are appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() Issue 33 - December 2009
| |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Alan16 ( talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Regents, fancy seeing you here! Oh, this is your talkpage. Listen, I've been involved in Tarati, God knows why--do you know what the proper template is for an infobox? There seems to be no "villages of Pakistan," and I don't want to pick the wrong one. Your help, as always, is greatly appreciated. Toodle pips, Drmies ( talk) 19:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk| WikimediaUK 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The term British India was quoted by Parliament of Britain. The term was never accepted by India, its derogatory to Indians. India was never part of Britian, it was ruled by British. I would like term to be changed to British rule in India or British ruled India where applicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.96.104 ( talk) 15:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
... to you, and thanks for all the work you and your fellow mentors have done supporting Mattisse this year. -- JN 466 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 18:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Greetings of the Season | |
A merry good morning I wish you, My friends both great and small. When the world, for his fare, shall press you, may you n'er go to the wall. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
As our resident mediator on British-India topics, couldn't you have jumped in a bit sooner at Talk:Company rule in India and Talk:East India Company, and saved me much effort ?! PS: Does, asking someone skiing the Alps to break a leg bring them good luck or bad ? ;-) Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Just thought that you might like to know that I quoted you in a 3O opinion.
See
User_talk:OrangeDog#regpkqt. Regards,
TRANSPORTERMAN (
TALK)
16:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear RegentsPark, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).
Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki!
HJMitchell
You rang?
20:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi RegentsPark,
Radiantenergy ( talk) 21:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hope you had a great time in Europe. When you find it convenient, could you take a look at British Raj, where the same editor user:Eraserhead1 is looking to add material. My memory of the page is that there was some concern that the history section was too long and that the first two subsections of it, both about prehistory, should be majorly pruned. Unfortunately, I am still traveling and won't have much time until after the third week of January for even routine editing, much less ideological battles. So, if you can add your input there, it would be great. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I want to second the thanks above by JN 466, and express my appreciation to you for continuing to serve as my mentor/adviser. I seek to fulfill your expectations and not to let you down by poor behavior. Wishing you a very wonderful New Year. Warmest regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 16:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I have sent you an e-mail. -- Tenmei ( talk) 07:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to suggest that if you wish to discuss relevance and content of the german article with me, we do it on the articles discussion page instead of the Noticeboard for India-Related Topics. Hope that is fine with you. Sas2009 ( talk) 23:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I think its been a long time since we talked. When you find it convenient, pls have a look at National Institute of Technology, Srinagar and tell me how can I improve its rating. Thanks and wish you a happy new year 2010. Rohit Reddy™ ( talk) 03:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey- this is regarding this decline at WP:RFPP. Per guideline at WP:BLANKING, whois templates, blocked templates (while the user is blocked), and declined unblock notices (again, while blocked) are to remain. My general rule is I'll reblock the user with talk page access revoked if they've "abused" it more than once- that gives them a chance to cool off and/or read what is being said without revoking it needlessly. Anyhow, that's just my take. tedder ( talk) 07:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, RP, the Signpost is looking for someone to write the Arbitration reports (see this week's from the editor and previous arbitration report). Interested? — Athaenara ✉ 23:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could help me answer a question. What does it mean when someone who edits a wikipedia article states he considers himself "involved" and what does it mean to "stub an article"? any advice you can give would be appreciated. 189.38.250.30 ( talk) 22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I have a little bit more to do and then a copy edit to finish (on hard copy) then implement; and after that I intend on taking it to PR, and probably splitting off the history section as a daughter article if people feel that needs to be done. Then GA, and later in the year if I can get out there and take some more pics I think it could be FA material. We'll see. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take the lead for now. If you'd like to pick the next WikiProject and start looking for editors to interview, that would be great. I've listed some WikiProjects that have recently started up, but you're free to choose something else if none of these sound interesting:
I'm almost done with next week's report, so the new report will be for the week after (January 25). - Mabeenot ( talk) 04:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Just as trivia: Besides the Punjabi cultural influence the language and aesthetics of early "Hindi" cinema was also greatly affected by Parsi theatre (a red link - ironic, isn't it!). Abecedare ( talk) 19:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
do you see as a problem w/using The American Jewish Historical Society as a source?
Also, the better course if you cannot get a link to work is to put in a dead link template, rather than to delete it. That, among other things, allows bots to find the original and replace the existing w/the archived original. Deleting dead links just because they are dead interferes with that process, and is therefore a deprecated approach.
Thanks, and happy new year.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Offer accepted and appreciated. Best wishes for a happy new year.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is propaganda, one-sided, skewed in its very title.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at
Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at
New York University;
sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Im posting this for records keepin, case progress: [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.162.212.225
Don't worry about having to put an article together for next week. We can work on it together. I just thought you'd like to pick the project. Burma and Hudson Valley may have limited appeal to people outside Southeast Asia and New York, but either one would work. I noticed you're involved with WikiProject Novels which is another possibility. There's also the option of doing a newly founded project like WikiProject Java. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Bonjour Regent,
The history of Monet's page is one of multi daily vandalism/revert/vandalism/revert...
On 14 January, you half-protected the page, [2], but how good can this be if only for three days? The minute the half-protection was lifted, vandalism came back.
Can you put the half-protection back with no limit on it?
Merci d'avance, Frania W. ( talk) 14:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd certainly have the time. Getting the message out to a larger audience would be great. Thanks. Alan16 ( talk) 21:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear RegentsPark,
Thank you for your advice. Even though regretfully I didn't quite follow it, I urge you to freely offer me you council in the future. I did learn from this episode that I do not handle certain situations well and need to identify and then simply avoid those particular situations in the future.
I value you as one of my advisors and hope you will continue to participate actively whenever you see me go astray.
Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello! IMDb is reliable only for hard data of released films - awards, credits, characters, crew etc., but its trivia, biographies etc., are written by users, therefore it cannot be used in such instances. Also, when future films are concerned, it's better to verify the info with other sources ( WP:NFF). Shahid • Talk2me 10:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
you forget Nehru Jinnah and Gandhi helped lead to a independence subcontinent and all accepted divided India in the end
02:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Your article looks great. Thanks for doing such an excellent job and getting it together on schedule. I did a small copyedit and added a teaser for next week at the end (WP Dinosaurs is coming). Would you like to take WP Olympics for the week after next? - Mabeenot ( talk) 05:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Heya, would you please consider this, and possibly this. Cheers, NJA (t/ c) 10:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm probably becoming a pain, sorry! You addressed my concerns (twice now) at WP:RPP for User:Shirik/Commitment. I see it's protected now, but I was hoping for full protection, not semi-protection, because this is something that should never change (as was done with User:Shirik/PGP). Rather than keep spamming WP:RPP I figured I'd pop over here and ask you directly since you had taken care of it twice now. Please feel free to ask if there's any questions. Thanks again! -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
this editor is going around removing well sourced info about Al-qaeda activities in Kashmir from Al-Qaeda as well as Kashmir Conflict article. can you take a look Wikireader41 ( talk) 02:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
G guy set up the page so that discussion is on talk, and the Conclusions and consensus section is not to be used for discussion. Since you started a discussion there, Mattisse logically followed it there, but according to how G guy set the page up, that threaded discussion should be moved to talk. I raised the alert because SusanLesch has put over 500 edits (I think, didn't check) into trying to salvage the article, and she seems very stressed, as obvious by her comments on the FAR. She has been hit three times by a dynamic IP damaging the article, and the timing of the incorrect tagging was unfortunate. An apology on her page might help (I haven't yet checked if that has been done), as she seems to be growing very frustrated. Now, since the threaded discussion is on a page I'm not supposed to edit, I can't add these comments there :) Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It still looks like you all are managing this fine, but I'm curious about which diff I missed on your statement that Mattisse apologized before I filed the Alert. As far as I know, that is incorrect, so I may have missed something. I brought it very quickly to Alerts, as there have been some strange posts on mine and Raul's talk page in the past from SL, and I didn't want Mattisse to find herself in a huge problem that could complicate the FAR, particularly since SL was already frustrated about the dynamic IP. (I've got a cold, but you can search my talk archives or Raul's to see what I'm referring to.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
You salted Alejandro (song), but then they went ahead and created Alejandro (Lady GaGa song) instead. Any chance you can salt that as well? Thanks. Nymf talk/ contr. 18:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) You're right. It should go to AfD. My mistake. I've unprotected both Alejandro (song) as well as Alejandro (Lady GaGa song). -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark,
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 15:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi... the user Ikonoblast moved the article Forward Caste to General Caste without reaching a consensus on the talk page. Could you revert his move and start a " request to page move section", so that everyone will be able to give their opinion? Thanks. 122.177.221.149 ( talk) 05:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
iBen can't do the WP Olympics feature for next week. Would you be willing to take that one and he'll do the following week instead? - Mabeenot ( talk) 04:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
This was the response to my adding the wording you suggested: bugger all to do with a "spirit of cooperation" Does this not seem to be an example of article ownership? It seems that if an opinion is given on whether or not one thinks an article is appropriate for TFA, the article's editor takes personal umbrage. Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 21:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a constant stream of vandalism/edit-war on pages such as Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi & RAGS International. I've tried to make both pages to a level of satisfaction for all users and freely invited editors to make contributions to make the article better. It is a redirection to other pages, but Falconkhe constantly redirects the page to another article. He's been requested more than a dozen times to discuss it on the discussion page for any improvements or constructive edits, but to no avail. Please help :) -- Nasiryounus| Talk 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirpur,_Azad_Kashmir
are you able to unblock page and revert the edits when you ahve time Mughalnz ( talk) 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, when is my 48 hours up, as I would like to comment on other (unrelated) subjects on the page I was banned from for 48 hours. Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
When you get a chance, please add your next WikiProjects to the table iBen created in the Signpost newsroom. There's no rush on the later ones, but we'd like to know the Feb 15 topic before Ks0stm finishes the Olympics report so we can include a teaser about your article. If you're still really busy in RL, feel free to swap weeks with my WikiProject Java. - Mabeenot ( talk) 06:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, it'd be an honour. Graham 87 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello! For your March 1 WikiProject Report, the Signpost commitee has suggested that you do WikiProject Severe Weather to kick off the start of tornado season in the Northern Hemisphere. Hope to see you in a Signpost slot again, Belugaboy535136 contribs 00:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi RegentsPark. Pretzels set up a new workspace for us at the Signpost called the WikiProject Desk. The suggestions section, schedule chart, and discussions have all been relocated there. You can continue to conduct interviews in your user space or create a subpage to the WikiProject Desk if you'd like it to feel more official. I noticed you changed yourself to "backup" so I'm sure real life has gotten busy for you. How often would you like to write reports? - Mabeenot ( talk) 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark/Archive 8 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 09:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse tried to edit at some point while blocked, and that triggered the autoblock of her IP address. You then unblocked her account, but the underlying autoblock needed to be undone too. In future, you can go here, and enter the account name. It then searches for autoblocks. I can't remember whether it undoes them automatically, or whether you have to click something else, but it's all obvious once you enter a name that an autoblock applies to. Hope this helps. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I hope the persecution stops now. Please. I can take no more of this ugliness. Perhaps I will start storing up diffs for any arbitration coming up. Hope that is not illegal and blockable. It probably is as I got punished for doing so before. Otherwise, I will be doing no more editing on wikipedia in article space, dyk etc. I have inquired as to how to modify the plan. I now realize that the mentors/advisers are not familiar with it and are not applying the graduated warnings as specified. They seem to go straight to the block. A very demeaning and unproductive situation that only engenders ill will. At the moment I have no desire to contribute to Wikipedia. Very different from the pre arbitration days when I was an enormously productive editor. I doubt I ever will be again. The desire is gone. — mattisse ( Talk) 22:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
If you will have me back, I will help you with the Graham67 interview as planned originally. I would sure like to see him get an interview and he is an interesting guy and deserves recognition. Also, he expresses himself well. Regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 19:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Please help me protected this page by the following non stop changing I.P. address:
189.164.88.207
189.164.86.232
189.164.154.72
189.164.97.160
189.182.25.226
189.182.30.51
189.164.84.85
189.182.24.12
189.164.93.129
189.164.163.139
and many more...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryGD ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for very helpful information on WP:AN or, better still, WP:AN3 or WP:RFPP). Best Wishes. - MaryGD ( talk) 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryGD ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm puzzled. Isn't the interviewer... you? -- Dweller ( talk) 16:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, looks like the two of us were editing Pellegrino's article at the same time in regard to his Hiroshima book.
I merged what you had written with what I had written and was trying to post at the same time as you. I hope the results are satisfactory. Sincerely, -- Skb8721 ( talk) 05:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey there - it was nice to try the unprotection, and it's never a bad idea, but I'm prepared to reapply the semi soon. I'm afraid there will be uncaught vandalism after only a day or two. And even though page viewing from Dec '07 → Feb '10 has gone down about 24%, and the level of activity it still quite high and I seriously doubt the level of vandalism will ever improve until she becomes less of a pop icon. Just letting you know, cheers, Jamie S93❤ 23:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I have posted my rational. But, the other party who kept repeatedly calling all my edits non-consensual have yet posted anything yet, though the person is active on the Wikipedia. What would come next? Aditya( talk • contribs) 05:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, America Bazar, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America Bazar. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Favonian ( talk) 11:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I took the liberty of changing an archived discussion at Talk:Daśāvatāra, because it wasn't clear to me that everyone was in fact discussing the same thing. (And there was no discussion at all, just "votes".) I hope this doesn't offend you. Regards, Shreevatsa ( talk) 00:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
As per your closing remarks on the move, so initiated Talk:Daśāvatāra#Move_to_which_name: a vote to select a non-diacritic name. I leave it to you to close the vote and move the article, when if you there is a sufficient consensus. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Third Opinion Award | |
For being the fourth largest contributor to the Third Opinion project (and in a period of only seventeen months, at that). Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 17:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks! I figured that since you made the award, and have given a hefty number of third opinions, you should be the first to get it! -- RegentsPark ( talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello RegentsPark,
Thanks for moving Tyson the Cyclops to Tyson (Percy Jackson). It's definitely a better name. The talk page, Talk:Tyson the Cyclops, needs moving, too, to retain its history. May you please address the issue when possible? Thanks, Airplaneman talk 03:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you move protect the Orissa/Oriya related pages recently moved by Bishupriyaparam ( talk · contribs) ? I already moved them back, and perhaps am uninvolved, but prefer to pass the buck... Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 16:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
With regard to wp:ANI#Request to remove unjustified indefinite protection of List of male performers in gay porn films, the discussion has been quickly side-tracked and de-railed. I was considering raising a RfC on the talk page of Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films, though I suspect that the same folks will attempt to confuse any discussion, it might be more successful. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed considering the relevant admin is convinced this is a way of enforcing BLP? Ash ( talk) 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You may not be aware that SHA-1 commitment on your user page is considered broken since 2005. Therefore I would advise you to move to SHA-256 or SHA-512. -- JovianEye ( talk) 17:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on " climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
15:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
As you commented on YellowMonkey's statement on WP:AN I thought I should mention that the schools part of that is now an RfC. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I just want to thank you for protecting the Sarah Jessica Parker article. It's very much appreciated. -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply to Semi-protection Article. Can you tell me how I can protect my changes done to the article as any one can revert back to old version which is Spoiling the Sikh Identity & Violates the NPOV fundamentals of Wikipedia. -- Dilpreet Singh Virdi ( talk) 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for valuable words , Let me put my changes one by one. Moreover, this topic is controversial and in articles reference are misused , Talk from non-Sikh were preferred and moderator is Biased(Check the Discussion Page).-- Dilpreet Singh Virdi ( talk) 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Regents, I'm hoping that you will take a look at Talk:Wizards_(film). I issued a 3O and cautioned both users about the edit war there on the point that I was asked to opine on. The war stopped on that point, but then continued on a related point. I warned them again and put warnings on both of their talk pages ( Sugar Bear ( talk · contribs) subsequently deleted it). It looked like everything had calmed down, with one chunk of information (the one on which I had opined) out and the other in, but then Prosfilaes ( talk · contribs) — the one who was adding the information in dispute — revered again today. Would you consider reverting the todays's edits, fully protecting the page for a week, and issuing such warnings as you may see fit? I'll watch this page for your response? — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 01:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC) PS: If you'll check their block logs, neither of these users is unfamiliar with edit warring. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) (Minor correction 01:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC) - TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK))
The editor Prosfilaes is clearly trying to push his own POV on the article Wizards (film). He removed sourced content and added the opinion of an author whose opinion was already determined to not be notable, and is, in fact, overtly negative and not in any way objectionable (comparing the film itself to "the Nazi propaganda mill"). Your decision to protect the page rather than reverting Prosfilaes' vandalism is absurdly misguided. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 20:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
If you are around can you take a look at the recent edit-warring at the article, and see if warnings/blocks/protection are warranted ? Although I am not a regular editor of the article, I have commented on its content and am probably "involved" at this stage (despite my disinterest in the subject!). Abecedare ( talk) 18:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you should post a note on Okip's talk page that he has been unblocked. He may not be aware of it. I would, but there's enough reasons for me not to. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
[5] I tried to point this out earlier (though not quite so well-worded) and found it to be nothing but banging my head against a brick wall. You might find it easier just to give it up and let NYCJosh and Jrtayloriv have the page and keep it tagged, as they will never allow changes to be made. Soxwon ( talk) 13:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Re [6]. Piano non troppo ( talk) 23:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Kwamikagami ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), has been attempting to rename a series of three articles against since December 2008, and has not succeeded in convincing the community. He took it upon himself just a few minutes ago to once again move the article to Yue Chinese, effectively reversing the move that you made earlier today in line with the talk page consensus - he ironically argues that the move is consensus driven. I believe that he has been acting in violation of WP:UNINVOLVED, and would ask you to please undo his move and to protect it from further moves until clear consensus has been demonstrated. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Regents,
I was rather puzzled by your move without any discussion or explanation. There have been months of discussion, and a Request for Move which was closed with a decision here to move to Yue Chinese by User:Angr, one of two long-standing uninvolved admins at Wikiproject Language. However, a few editors such as Ohconfucius flatly refuse to accept the change. (Angr gives his reasons there, and defends them on his talk page.) Anyway, the path to renaming the article, if they wish, should follow the normal path of discussion and consensus, and there has been no discussion recently. kwami ( talk) 07:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Regents, since I didn't see that you had closed the old RfM, and can't really tell whether you have problems with Angr's closure of the previous RfM or not, I've put the page back until you have a chance to get back to me. kwami ( talk) 08:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: Responded on article talk page. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Barbados Banks.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
00:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, bad phrasing. I completely accept that the cuisine and food of a nation are of paramount importance to a country and its people. My question was "How is Banks beer cultural important to Barbados?". I'm not from the country, so I felt it should be explained as for all I know it was created in Poland and now brewed in Iran. Rather than Banks Beer at sunset, which sounds like an advertisment, It should say something on the lines of "Banks Beer has been brewed in Barbados since 1923 and is the best selling beverage on the island." then it is relevent to the article. FruitMonkey ( talk) 08:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
En mi opinión, el artículo hablaba más del Municipio (Valle de Echo) que de la localidad (Echo), por eso he trasladado. Más tarde quería mejorar el artículo del municipio con algún dato más. CHV ( O mío Buzón de Correus) 19:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You appear to have forgotten to sign the close of the move discussion. You probably should do that. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you please clarify your opposition to topic ban Mathsci? Specifically these 2 questions:
Thank you. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 10:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
OK. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on question 1 :) The way I see it, mathsci is seeing a serious problem of neutrality in the articles in question and, it is his/her observation that a group of SPA editors are at the root of the problem. He has been bringing this to the attention of the community (principally at ANI) and has been getting a vague endorsement of his views with no actionable suggestions. In that sense, there is nothing wrong with his/her bringing the matter up at various forums. Unlike you, I don't see him/her using WQA as a battleground - he/she raised a very specific etiquette issue (comment on the edits and not on the user is a useful adage). My view on who should be given a topic ban (I hesitate to use the word 'sanctioned') is expressed here. Hope this helps.-- RegentsPark ( talk) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
03:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark: You're the boss. As I said, though, Grant and Lincoln are indefinitely semi-protected, and I think this should be too. I think it is a terrible waste of time and resources to allow a lead page like this to be vandalized so easily and watchers to have to be so vigilant. But thanks for your intermediate step of blocking a user. I was suprised to see vandalism from an identified user, but I suppose the person has multiple accounts. Hartfelt ( talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark: Just writing to note that the vandalism continues apace in the Sherman article. I think it is a waste of Wikipedia's money/computer space and of contributor time to allow this. I really think, as you know, that this article shld have the same indefinite semi-protection that the Lincoln and Grant articles have. Please let me know if the time is right to renew my protection request formally. Thank you. Hartfelt ( talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark: In light of your May 22 response, I held off requesting semi-protection, but today's stupidness pushed me over the edge. I confess that I do not understand why vandals are given such leeway while those who contribute constructively and care about an important (featured) article are forced to monitor the article all the time to try to keep it up to snuff. This is rather pushing me away from the Wikipdeia community. Hartfelt ( talk) 00:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
A3RO has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
as I agree with your thoughts left on Tan's talk page. -- A3RO (mailbox) 20:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a least two user to move the page to un-popular name and non-exit name. The most famous one is Kaka12o ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who often use cut and paste move and move them to un-popular title, and he had socketpuppet of Kaka12 ( talk · contribs) and many other (i did not count, but named Kaka11 or something). 210.6.121.21 ( talk) 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
But the "official" name is totally un-sourced and the users keep on move to a unsourced or even not exist name. Likes Tigres de la UANL was moved to C.D. Universitario de Nuevo León but the university name is Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. Common name with reliable source and claimed "Official" name without source, i prefer the former.
But the users is crazy and prefer latter and moved again and again to his name he remember or seems remembered. Another case is Club Atlas and Club América they were had reliable source supported and crazy users keep on move to new name that had no source to support or (Atlas was moved from CF Atlas to fútbol Club Atlas then Futbol Club Atlas but the fact is the name is Club Atlas and went wrong for years. "Club América" was moved to CF América but the officialsite of the club just called himself "Club América" Look at the damm log of crazy move Matthew_hk t c 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the move request, I didn't move the page, but somebody else did. That person didn't close the request, so I've just done it (as the template displayed a request to that effect). That person also didn't clean up the incoming links, so I'm just doing it now. As for 'refactoring' it, if that means that the move request template itself is to be removed, then that's what I've done as part of closing it. If you mean something else, I don't know what it is that you are talking about. Schwede 66 18:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Noble move; I agree to let it rest. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Sikh extremism has grown since the 1990s, with Canada being its center-of-gravity. ( more). Abecedare ( talk) 01:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, your work is appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, can you please reconsider or explain your decline here? This is a well-known case; we've had dozens of incidents of the same type with this user over the last few months. He is on a dynamic ISP, if you block one IP he will just hop to the next. He doesn't care about blocks or about breaking 3RR, because he's indef-blocked anyway. He will never stop reverting, out of sheer spite, until a page is semi-protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I assume that your request on ANI was for the subpage to be archived. That does not seem to have happened. Is it possible for you to get an uninvolved administrator to do so? Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 12:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Pls have a look at the rev history of Salman Rushdie. feels like its protection level must be upped. thanks. Arjun codename024 11:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Arjun codename024 14:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
As you moved Ashoka the great to Ashoka; i would like to invite your attention; to check whether the same rationale applies for Akbar.Rgs. Arjun codename024 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Mootros ( talk) 17:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I've sent you email. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
When I was discussing Mathsci’s possible misuse of tags with you on the talk page for the Snyderman and Rothman article, you explained under what circumstances it’s appropriate to remove these tags:
“Generally, it is better to give the tagger a couple of days to add a rationale on the talk page. If no rationale is added, you can then delete the tag. If the tag is repeatedly added without explanation, then you can alert the WP:AN3 noticeboard.’
Six days after Mathsci had tagged the Mainstream Science on Intelligence article, he still hadn’t provided any rationale for the tags on its talk page, so I removed them. Mathsci immediately added them back, still without providing any rationale, except to say in his edit summary that there’s “still a dispute”. There haven’t been any comments on this article’s talk page, dispute or otherwise, in over six months.
I’d rather not keep removing the tags myself, because when I tried this on the Snyderman and Rothman article Mathsci just keep edit warring to add them back. He also tends to threaten me with being blocked whenever I revert any of his edits, which is annoying. Now that you’ve explained what behavior is and isn’t appropriate while tagging articles, and it’s clear that this situation falls into latter category, is there anything you can do about it? -- Captain Occam ( talk) 13:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Mootros ( talk) 14:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks You for your time. Arjun codename024 07:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it's safe to unprotect now? NW ( Talk) 22:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed no one ever acted on the request for unprotection and the admin didn't comment further. It got auto-archived. Alio The Fool 20:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This user has made 228 content edits in his wikipedia life. I have no idea why has planted himself on WP:BLPN. Nor for that matter why he has reported me on WP:WQA for pointing his unfamiliarity with the way priimary souirces are used on WP> as you he has attempte his own analysis of Jensen's 1969 paper, which I said he was in no poisiton to do (like any other wikipedian). He has twice reverted the two articles History of the race and intelligence controversy and Mainstream Science on Intelligence. His edits and comments (eg about the eminence of Donald T. Campbell) show no awareness of wikipedia editing policies. He has claimed the content I was using was libellous. Please can something be domne to control this editor who is edit warring, forum shopping and appears not to be willing to invest any effort in reading secondary sources? he has made an incorrect judgement about a BLP violation. Edits that are just a little bit out of control and totally ill-informed? Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for protecting the article. I would like to add a citation to the article which I think is not controversial, as it is clearly in line with the current policy Talk:Research_fellow#Non-English_sources. Many thanks! Mootros ( talk) 14:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#user:Kushsinghmd. Mootros ( talk) 19:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
I have requested a move of Punjab (Pakistan) to Punjab (Pakistani province). You may wish to express your opinion on the talk page.
Your comment at | this ANI thread is misplaced. Would you mind not putting it in the middle of the discussion between me and Yworo? Thanks? David.Kane ( talk) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Since you have commented at length on topic bans for SPAs active on race related articles, please see the current Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Race and intelligence. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 07:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Regents Park hi. I have requested protection of Mayawati again. The edit warring is massive. Please assist. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 17:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's ok. Elockid did it. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Pls see Talk:Pratap_Singh_of_Mewar#Requested_move - uncontroversial. Arjun codename024
Regents, would you please take a few minutes to look at the edit war, incivility fest, and all–around brawl that's going on at Nicola Blackwood. I opined there, then warned both of them about personal attacks and they both just keep after it and complain to me about each other. Thanks, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 21:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Can u pls have a look at the latest developments at Hemant Karkare - i strongly feel they are WP:FRINGE; more so sources furnished are twocircles.net, hardnewsmedia.com etc. Just thought you would be the ideal guy for this. Arjun codename024 07:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is a query from an anon i received on my talk page; I thought its better to forward it to you since i do not know really know anything about the sock puppet stuff.
The following users are probably sock puppets:
They are edit-warring on the article in tandem. Perhaps you should file a sock puppetry report and also put a complaint at WP:RFPP. 117.194.197.61 ( talk) 23:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Arjun codename024 10:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the move. NickCT ( talk) 17:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello RegentsPark. While I appreciate your help in moving things forward, you have closed a discussion on this page move, I feel, too hastily. Given the easily hundreds of hours that have gone into the discussion, just on the move itself, let alone during what clearly was a 3 year long battle on the page itself, it is difficult to imagine that you might have adequately considered, much less fully appreciated the depth of the issues discussed, in one hour of study for your closing. The reason I say this is that it took me almost 2 months to understand what had happened after I started working on that page this past April.
One point that you have clearly not addressed is the fact that the phrase 'tree shaping', which was arbitrarily and capriciously chosen in the first place, off the discussion page and completely without consensus, is itself not at all neutral. Your closing explanation seems to conflate the trade name Pooktre, with the phrase used to re-title the page. Pooktre is an established trade name of the questionable editors. It is not at all generic, nor in common usage, and is thus not under any consideration as a title for the page. Clear consensus was already reached that the current page title is unsatisfactory. We have carefully and clearly documented, concerning the phrase 'tree shaping' that:
I do understand that it is entirely your option to re-list or not, and to move or not, based on the strength of the arguments for & against, but do you not think, given the consensuses that were reached by non-involved editors and also given that the discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, that relisting would have been more appropriate in this case?
I agree with Martin Hogbin that a closing discussion is needed to reach further consensus. Without one that is satisfactory to all participating editors, and not just to the one involved editor who precipitated the original and very suspicious change, I feel that the editing atmosphere on that page is unlikely to improve and thus that the page itself is likely to suffer, not least in terms of content dilution. A page titled 'tree shaping' can no longer describe the specific and fascinating art that the article content presently describes (and which is and has been for many decades practiced by those artists detailed therein), but must instead also encompass fully all the myriad other arboricultural practices inherent in the actual activities of shaping trees. There would be no reason (or space) in such an article to include any of these inosculation artists, or their craft, at all. See? Duff ( talk) 11:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
i strongly disagree with your removing of sourced material: there is a reliable source, in the form of a book (Who killed Karkare ?). Even if sockpuppets have shown up there, I was mainly responsible for the section. Please also note that the IP that asked for deletion (117.194.197.61)was probably a sockpuppet of indef banned user Hkelkar. For these reasons, I strongly demand you revert to my edited version. We can discuss and change it according to contradictory sources, but certainly not remove it. Thanks. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 18:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | The allegation that sections of and individual Indian Muslims indulged in “terrorism” surfaced for the first time with the ascent of the Hindutva forces in mid-1990s and became state policy with the BJP’s coming to power at the Centre. With even “secular” media joining the role as stenographers of security agencies, this became an accepted fact so much so that common Indians and even many Muslims started believing in this false propaganda. | ” |
“ | It comes out with some startling facts and analysis, the first of its kind, to expose the real actors behind the so-called “Islamic terrorism” in India whose greatest feat was to murder the Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare who dared to expose these forces and paid with his life for his courage and commitment to truth. While unearthing the conspiracy behind the murder of Karkare, this book takes a hard look at some of the major incidents attributed to “Islamic terrorism” in India and finds them baseless. | ” |
“ | Terror's Hindu Face: Todays's ie, 18th May 2010's Asian Age's Delhi Edition devotes a full page to the hitherto well hidden from the public gaze and long suppressed by the media, Hindu Terrorism. | ” |
“ | A new book curiously titled Who Killed Karkare? says a nationwide network of Hindutva terror that has its tentacles spread up to Nepal and Israel is out to destroy the India most Indians have known for ages and to remould it into some kind of Afghanistan under the Taliban. | ” |
[14]. 117.194.193.101 ( talk) 17:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
(od) No one is going to take any hasty actions here. The material on Karkare needs to be thrashed out on the talk page of the Hemant Karkare article first, before it is inserted in other articles as well. I've protected Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks as well until this is sorted out. 2008 Mumbai attacks also appears to be protected. Please sort this out on the talk page of Hemant Karkare before attempting to add this material to other articles. Regards. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 21:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I would ask you to add in the Controversy section yourself, now that it is recognized even by leading journalists like Vir Sanghvi: [21] Now it transpires that even Karkare could have been saved. People have always wondered how the bullets penetrated the bullet-proof jacket he was wearing. The Bombay Police responded by saying that a) he was shot in the neck so the jacket was no protection, b) that the jacket was perfectly good but c) the file pertaining to its purchase had been lost and d) even the jacket itself had miraculously vanished. Cool hindu ( talk) 06:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your involvement with the tree shaping article. (Sorry you ever discovered this article exists? I sure wish I never discovered it!) I'm contacting you because I feel that relevant verifiable evidence about the uses of the word "arborsculpture" wasn't properly reviewed in the recent renaming discussion. Do you happen to know the Wikipedia guidelines about when we would be allowed to bring the renaming issue to formal discussion again? Or is there any restriction on how soon one could formally initiate discussion again? -- Griseum ( talk) 06:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 02:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear RegentsPark,
Could I ask you whether you could easily unprotect the following deleted page: Pixable . I haven been contacted by an editor who has created a credible page on the subject with supporting references demonstrating notability. Please see here User:Elaynekosty/pixable. Many thanks for your help. Mootros ( talk) 17:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I remember you started reverting a user who kept attaccking me personally on the mentioned talk page and finally you bloxked him for a short period, but now going through it I find that in several previous posts he kept attacking me and insulting me by referring to me as Ms Shahida Kumari, etc. I would want these messages to be removed. Should I do it or you would prefer to do it? Shahid • Talk2me 12:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
If you have access to the article in some form, you will see that just 4% of it is devoted to the anti-sikh riots of 1984. Overall, it covers the period from 1978 to present. You will find very little of this material in the anti-sikh riots article. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa ( talk) 19:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I see you also got involved in the case of Dr Mukesh's sock who creates accounts to insult me and stalks my edit history. There's another one - Group all sixty ( talk · contribs). Shahid • Talk2me 22:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thnx for the page protection. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 22:18, 16 July 2010 ( UTC)
RegentsPark, I notice you’ve just used your sysop powers to edit the race and intelligence article through page protection in order to revert one of the edits that led to it being protected. Now, I already know what your explanation for this is going to be—that the “wrong version” of the article was protected—but this is only an acceptable use of sysop powers in the case of simple vandalism. When there is an actual dispute over the content in question, admins should not be using their powers in a manner that is (quite overtly) favoring one side in the dispute over the other.
I’m not involved in this particular content dispute, because I don’t have a strong opinion either way about the content in question. This is only about your use of admin privileges, which I’m bringing up as a relatively uninvolved editor watching the article. I seriously suggest that you reconsider your decision to use your admin powers for this. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 21:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Your actions have been reported here [22]. mikemikev ( talk) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed, looking over the above linked project page, that all restrictions imposed on editors are logged there. Per your closure of this ANI thread, I was wondering if you could add the necessary information to the page.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
(od) I don't see why it shouldn't be logged. Unless there has been a discussion since the one linked to above that changes things? -- RegentsPark ( talk) 02:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the history here, but can you (Daedalus and Radiopathy) both make an effort to leave each other alone, and not further this dispute? Thanks much; I think that would be in everyone's best interest. -- Pak aran 02:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)\
I've logged the restriction with the 1 per day specified (though it is not necessary). Beyond that, I think Pakaran has the right idea. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 03:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You closed the AN/I on Pmanderson a bit early. The RFC is likely to get deleted in a couple of hours by Bishonen. As far as I can figure out, he will close it because I, when asking Pmanderson to not do personal attacks, instead of writing something like "I would like you to not attack other editors", used a template that said pretty much the same thing. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Pmanderson#This_RfC_is_still_uncertified. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
As this is my first involvement in an RfC I'm unsure of the process. We do have the minimum requirements fulfilled by now, but nothing seems to be happening. Is that normal? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(od)(ec)Thanks Xeno. I'm not sure what the practical effects of having the 48 hour rule waived but the RfC 'uncertified' are, but I suspect this is better resolved properly! ncmvocalist is likely the right person to deal with this. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 19:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.
There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session.
Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up
here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark, You first say, “I had to wade through long posts by Hindutashravi before I realized that his/her views (on Hindutash) were not worth any attention whatsoever”. This you have stated after unequivocally stating that, “I'm not even going to pretend to understand where Hindutash Pass actually lies”. Then you have the audacity to say on 20 October 2009 at 18:53 when in fact, I had been endeavouring to arrive at a consensus with John Hill , “In the light of previous discussions, you need to get consensus first and only then modify the article. The fact that you've posted something on the talk page is not enough”. You, RegentsPark had stated that I am “consistent in pushing views on the boundaries of Kashmir which are way beyond WP:FRINGE and he seems to have no other purpose on wikipedia” But When I asked you, “From what you are saying, “The “Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir” only on the basis of “a number of disparate pieces of information” "and the Times Atlas is not a reliable source!”, You do not at all respond. You do not have even iota of shame. When 86.96.226.22 in revision 372726931 endeavoured to create a neutral and comprehensive article blending both the rival versions, you could have none of it and nipped it in the bud and did not permit it to be taken forward for constructive modifications! Now you have the audacity to shamelessly say, “Blocked user attempting to evade block”. My stance is clear in the discussion page, and has not been refuted by the shameless administrators. None of you are accountable and you people can make sweeeping un substantiated allegations against me and do what you please with impunity. Why don’t you “protect” your version of Hindutash just like you have done to the Aksai Chin article? It will save a lot of my time and energy. And, It will also confirm that wikipedia is not "a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site". Hindutashravi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.67.109 ( talk) 05:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(od) Well, good luck. Meanwhile, do note that posting from an IP is block evasion, which is frowned upon. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 17:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Because the source quoted so ranks it; it is one of the few cases (because they comment on it specifically), where it is possible to be sure that they count both states as democracies. Both India and Pakistan were Dominions then, and had unwritten Consitutions after the British manner (as did Canada until the 1970s), but the legislatures on both sides were elected, before Independence, in the knowledge that they would be national legislatures and Constituent Assemblies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Can I take buckup of these articles World Organization for Scientific Cooperation and Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes. Thanks.-- Earth Defender ( talk) 08:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
for realising that there are situations where nothing is going to happen unless somebody does something. -- FormerIP ( talk) 01:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
For reading Pmandersons source on the Kashmir war. Of the sources he uses which are available online he usually gets them wrong them, but I haven't had any chance to check out the other sources. I should probably give you a barn star or something, but I don't really know which one. :-) -- OpenFuture ( talk) 05:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi RegentsPark. I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that I (respectfully) disagree with your apparent assumption that this individual now meets any of the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN and, to the best of my knowledge, will not do so until he actually wins the election or attains considerably more in the way of non-local media coverage than is present. My belief is that we have a responsibility to ensure that articles about political candidates are held to this standard because otherwise we could inadvertently be contributing to electioneering; frankly, I have seen many, many pages where these sorts of assertions of notability are being made by obviously partisan political workers in the hope that Wikipedia's imprimatur will be lent to their candidate. In this case, the article in question actually failed at AfD about 60 days ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Buck, which leads me to suggest (again respectfully) that you may have erred in restoring this page without asking that it be taken through deletion review. May I know your thoughts? Accounting4Taste: talk 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm closing the case as stale, after a week of inactivity; should this dispute flare up again, feel free to reopen without prejudice. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a look and see if protection is necessary? I was involved in a similar issue on the article a while back (with a sock drawer), so I can't take any action. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 07:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
… to thank you for your note, and for your honest good-faith participation on a difficult talk page. Cynwolfe ( talk) 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to flatter, but I have you down as someone smart enough to see that there would be a point in having a definitive external list to de-POV the issue RegentsPark. I suspect that avoiding a load of nonsensical chit-chat, whilst understandable, isn't particularly noble as a motive for doing nothing. :-) In all seriousness though, I view the UN list as being like SI units or something - the UN are the people who approve nation-states and agree to their names, boundaries, etc. Wikipedia should be as bound by that as by the SI standards. It really is unflattering to have UN-recognised country name exceptions governed by who has the most votes (Georgia) or Arbcom people not being able to stand any more rows for a while (Ireland). 15:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 15:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you protect for a few days? Minor content dispute between two IPs that's basically made this a revert garden. I've edited the article before in a similar content area, so I can't take any action. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 14:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The relevant discussion has been moved to Template_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars#.27Indian_freedom_struggle.27 Zuggernaut ( talk) 16:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if you might look at a deleted page history and help me figure something out. In doing hangon patrolling yesterday morning I came across a A7 speedy deletion nomination on Kafani, a musician, and declined it because I confirmed that the article subject had a charted single at Billboard, meeting WP:BAND #2. Since a declined speedy cannot ordinarily be reasserted, I was surprised to see that Esanchez7587 subsequently deleted it under A7. Not being a sysop, I can't look back to see what happened, so I asked Eschanez, but he's apparently choosing not to reply. I'm not asking for undeletion or deletion review or challenging his position, I just don't understand what happened and would like to know if and, if so, how I messed up in declining the speedy. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 13:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't address Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart, but the logic is pretty much the same, I suspect. I think that's enough answer to satisfy me, however. Thanks and sorry to have bothered you. TMMost of the charts in Billboard are either pure sales or radio charts. The only exceptions in which we mingle sales and radio data are two of our signature charts: the Billboard Hot 100 and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs (as well as two charts based on the same data feeds as the Hot 100: the Hot 100's Bubbling Under chart, which ranks the top 25 titles that have not yet reached the Hot 100, and Heatseekers Songs, which reflects the most popular songs by new or developing acts, defined as those who have never appeared as a lead artist in the top 50 of the Hot 100, or the top 50 of Hot 100 Airplay prior to Dec. 5, 1998).
Hello, you participated in a discussion last spring that resulted in renaming The Bronx as Bronx. There is now a proposal to open a new Request for Comments on restoring the original name. If you have comments about the timing of such a proposal, please make them soon at Talk:Bronx#Query: when do we consider this? because, unless a there's a consensus against such a Request for Comments, it will begin early this week. Thanks. —— Shakescene ( talk) 21:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Please remove the protection. or reduce the protection time to one day Ranjithsutari ( talk) 16:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Assuming you've read through all the discussions at ANI and the editors talkpage before you made your decision; And like you pointed out in your wrap-up comment I too hope they will live up to their latest response. My experience with this editor tells me different but AGF should never be dismissed, put aside or even forgotten. I want to express my respect for you finally touching and deciding on a difficult and contentious matter. Best, TMCk ( talk) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi RegentsPark.
I think you should a least give an apportunity for discussion of what Wikid77 has proposed. What he seems to be proposing is that, since he is right and the problem is entirely with the conduct of admins and WP policy, he will campaign to ensure that blameless editors such as himself don't fall victim to this kind of thing in the future and he will write an essay about how to deal with unreasonable and agreesive administrators. Admittedly, he has offered to only launching one discussion at a time but, overall, I find it hard to credit that you have read his bulleted list and reached the conclusion that it adds up to anything.
You say in your summary that a topic ban does not have wide community support, but AFAICT all administrators and uninvolved editors who commented (up until you) supported a topic ban. The only support Wikid77 seems to have got is from within the cluster of SPAs discussed in another ANI thread.
You also say the ban would be excessive because it is over a "one day confusion (or not)" (just for the sake of saying so, it was two days). Which neatly misses the point. It is clear that Wikid77 breached his ban deliberately for some purpose, since he acknowledged the length of the ban a couple of days before breaching it and ignored my querying of him doing so. I don't think it is appropriate to spell out why I think he did this, but I also don't think it is necessary. -- FormerIP ( talk) 18:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
@ RegentsPark. may I suggest that you reevaluate your decision after reading closely through the entire thread (incl. links provided) and do so the same at Wikid77's talkpage, acknowledge that will do so here and then either confirm your first evaluation of the situation or update it if needed? As I earlier, you didn't mentioned or take in account that the editor is still blocked which makes clear that this is not resolved as of the time I'm posting. I'll take the freedom to update the ANI thread by removing the "resolved" tag while pointing to your talkpage for further information regarding this. Best, TMCk ( talk) 20:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't really agree with this. I think it premature to impose a topic ban and believe that you should seek much wider consensus (i.e., community wide consensus) for such a topic ban. Merely writing up a topic ban statement, getting a few supports, should not be an acceptable way to do this. I am aware of the block and have no comment on it and don't see why the topic ban thread (which is what the ANI complaint is primarily about) cannot be dealt with independently of the block. Anyway, if you feel that the discussion should continue, then que sera sera. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 22:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is fairly obvious that we differ on this. As far as I'm concerned, the topic ban is premature. You people, who are all clearly involved in the murder of meredith kercher (the article, I mean) feel otherwise. The ANI thingy is still unresolved. I'm not sure what point you all see in continuing this discussion here but feel free to keep commenting. :) -- RegentsPark ( talk) 23:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, Wikid77 wasn't blocked because of breaking his topic ban two days early, he was blocked because by doing so, he immediately resumed the kind of disruptive editing that led to his three months ban, and coincidentally, is at the root of his entire block history. Beyond the immediate disruption on the articles around the Knox case, he has also been an active voice in coaching two (or three) other users, PhanuelB ( talk · contribs), PilgrimRose ( talk · contribs) and Zlykinskyja ( talk · contribs) (those last two might be one and the same) into escalating the dispute - a review of Wikid77's interventions on PhanuelB's talk page while he was under a topic ban should make clear what this is about.
In all of this, Wikid77 has never acknowledged a sliver of responsibility. He could have, over more than a year, been a voice of reason and explained all the partisans who popped up at the article that the best way to get heard and to learn how Wikipedia works is to tune down the rethoric and listen. He never did, on the contrary, he has, without fail, done everything to inflame.
Wikid77 does good work on other parts of the encyclopedia, but the Knox affair is toxic to him just as much as his actions are toxic on it. A topic ban is a way to avoid having to remove him from the project for a long term. Letting him carry on will only lead to a long term block or a full community ban, something that could still be averted by taking the right action now.
MLauba (
Talk)
08:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) Wow! I go away for a couple of days to take care of RL stuff and, lo behold, WP:ANI has moved to my talk page. I hope that was a policy move backed by consensus (but, on the plus side, I can take ANI out of my watch list). -- RegentsPark ( talk) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Regent. I read your edit summary too :) As insane as my poetry was. Wanted to leave a personal note commenting that it was very sweet of you to withdraw your oppose in my RfA. It mattered a ton to me. Thanks again and sincere regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Regents Park, I feel your comment has left out the fact that others have made suggestions, that are also are not getting sufficient traction. Your comment gives the impression colincbn is the only one trying to come to an agreement. I understand this probably wasn't your intention, this is just how it comes across to me. Thanks. Blackash have a chat 04:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant! :) -- King Zebu ( talk) 18:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I've sent you email relating to this. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 13:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry I dragged you into this, but I've withdrawn my nomination. Thank you again for your support, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed here to rename Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Hindutva terrorism, as to be more accurate to the meaning that the terrorism is politically and nationally motivated and not religiously motivated. Please join the discussion. Silver seren C 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You have a new one.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 10:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Should we develop a stand–up routine? I create messes and you come in to clean them up? Or is it the other way around? Best regards, and with all my respect, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 16:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: this - the warning was a result of a request at RFPP for full-protection of Nair. Under the circumstances I felt a warning to both editors was preferable to full-protection. I did note at RFPP that neither editor seemed to have gone beyond two reverts. TFOWR 16:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
16:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Regents, (I'm tempted to call you "Reggie," but then you'd be tempted to call me "Trannie," and I wouldn't like that one little bit ...
) It appears that the content vs. all disputes discussion at 3O is going to stall out with no consensus. Despite the way that I phrased the proposal, I see that as leaving the content restriction in place but I don't want to assert that at the 3O talk page until I make sure that you and I are not going to disagree on that being the result. I'm not saying that a non-consensus result would necessarily result in the content restriction being now firmly established by consensus, but only that it would move us back to the status quo before the discussion arose. Is that how you would see it if there's a no-consensus result? Watching this space, regards,
TRANSPORTERMAN (
TALK)
19:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the article--I just noticed that most edits in the last year, whether coming from a similar IP range or from named accounts, have been the same. Same person appears to have targeted Joe Sestak. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 01:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I would not like you to be put in a situation where your support for me could be misunderstood and "Fighting battles on wikipedia is far from easy when you're up against obdurate editors and POV pushers and PBS does a reasonably fine job in dealing with these editors, IMO." could be taken to mean that you think that SV is an obdurate editor. I know you did not mean it, but that is because I know what sort of editor you are referring to and it is not editors like SV or Tony1. I would suggest that you clarify this with a personal note to her explaining that your words could be misunderstood by less charitable people than her and that you meant, for example the British India issue with editors like User:Xn4. -- PBS ( talk) 21:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I am a little bit surprised by this unblock. The editor's unblock request clearly indicates that he doesn't even understand why he was blocked (he says he was blocked for using the word "misconduct", when he was actually blocked for incivility for for this edit in which he refactors another user's comments (see the bottom of the diff; on top of that, he links to this ANI thread as evidence that user "generally disapprove of" my actions, even though that thread is about his actions and only one user there says anything about mine), so I don't see what makes you think the "user sees the error of his ways". The admin who declined the unblock request also indicated that the user clearly doesn't understand the reason for the block; would you care to explain why you unblocked anyway? Your unblock rationale seems to suggest that you are excusing Pmanderson's refactoring of talkpage comments because I did the same thing to him beforehand, even though he never provided any diffs regarding that (and I just looked through a month's worth of my diffs and found nothing; the only thing coming close was this, which was on someone else's comment and was only formatting).
Also note the blocking admin's message here: "I would like to urge other admins NOT to lessen the block duration this time; I don't see any sign that he "got the message" from any of the prior actions, RFC, warnings, etc. We need to have a sanction that sticks and has effective long term behavior change here."
Anyway, I'm sorry to be a bother, but you were expecting flak on this anyway. Could you please explain your reasons for unblocking a little more clearly? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 13:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
With this editor the tone seems to quickly get personal and "attackish", as I feel it has again in the discussion I just cited above.
I share your optimism about this editor, because my opinion is that he has valuable contributions and opinions to make and share, and does, but he still has trouble expressing disagreement by focusing on content without crossing the line into making derisive comments about those he disagrees with. Not sure it's worth filing an ANI anew, but thought I should bring it to your attention since you unblocked him. Perhaps a warning from you would be helpful? I'm pretty sure a warning from me would not have much if any effect. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, in what I have gathered in my limited interactions with you, I sincerely doubt you would ever make a comment like that about anyone in that context or otherwise. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If you can explain this more successfully than I have managed, please do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Here, by the way, is another example of this uncivil behavior, and PMA's inability or unwillingness to see it, even when pointed out [27] and explained [28]. What might be most relevant here is Kotniski's (unanswered) question, "So why do you say such nonsense, consistently, whenever you and I happen to be on opposite sides of a discussion?". Taking either of these incidents in isolation without the context of previous interactions may make it more difficult to realize what's going on, but I suggest there is a general pattern of saying unsubstantiated "nonsense" like someone misrepresents and disagrees with policy (when it's not true) and "you never do see why an idiomatic and natural distinction should be kept", specifically to disparage those with whom he disagrees. He knows that it just appears to be a normal disagreement, but it puts the other in a bad light. I don't know if it's conscious, but it's sharing opinions about people, not discussing content or arguments, and it needs to stop. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to research the issue raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incorrectly_closed_move_request_at_Cambridge.
I presume we agree there is a big difference between reviewing a challenged decision about a discussion and deciding whether a significant error was made in that decision vs. reviewing the discussion anew without regard to the soundness of the challenged decision. The difference is significant because if challenges to decisions don't review the decision but simply re-evaluate the discussion from scratch, the effect of that is to encourage using the challenge process as a kind of forum shopping. It is my understanding that appeals courts in the "real world" review appealed decisions before "retrying", and only make decisions anew if an error is discovered in the appealed decision. This seems to be done for very good reasons that also apply to Wikipedia. If you don't agree, please let me know.
So, I'm curious as to why in this case you reviewed the discussion, apparently without reviewing the decision itself, much less finding any errors in it. That is my impression since I've been given no indication about what error I may have made in the original decision. I've seen closes reviewed by admins in the past, including my own "non-admin closes of contentious discussions", and I don't believe I've ever seen the earlier decision ignored and the discussion simply re-evaluated as you apparently chose to do in this case.
I'm also very concerned about the judgement that "page hits are not much use in this situation because for all we know, every US city searcher might be typing Cambridge, Mass", which appears to be key to your decision to close as "no consensus to move". By this reasoning "page hits are not much use" in any primary topic determination, because we never know what searchers might be typing. But if that's true, that puts into question countless naming decisions made in Wikipedia since its inception, and continuing to occur every day. I suggest this is a fundamental error in the reasoning, the kind of error I expected the reviewer of my decision to identify if my decision was not affirmed.
Since this decision about the significance of page view counts in primary topic determinations has widespread implications, would you please re-evaluate this decision accordingly, or ask someone else? Thanks. - Born2cycle ( talk) 03:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
That is, in order to comply with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the predominant POV among closing admins has been that those who support having an article at the plain name have the burden to show that that article meets primary topic criteria, regardless of whether the discussion is about moving the article in question to, or away from, the plain name. Thus, if those opposing the move of an article from its current place at a plain undisambiguated name cannot show that it is the primary topic for the name, then the move should occur, regardless of whether those in support can show that that article's topic is not primary for that name.
For example, a few weeks ago I made a closing decision accordingly at what was then Talk:Stockman (now Talk:Stockman (Australia)#Requested_move). As with Cambridge, there was consensus that the topic in question was primary in one country (Australia for stockman; England for Cambridge), but the claim that the topic was the primary use beyond that one country was not shown, so I found no consensus to keep that article at Stockman, despite the majority of those participating favoring that the article not be moved. That decision was challenged, and it was supported by an uninvolved admin here. So I applied the same reasoning at Cambridge.
Don't you agree that if we don't get some consistency on this point about who has the burden in these decisions involving primary topic determination, then we might as well be using a coin toss to decide them? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
You're ignoring my point, which is that your point, the primary topic claim [that the city in England is the primary use of Cambridge] has not been shown to be incorrect, even if true, is irrelevant.
The bottom line in situations where primary topic determination is at issue is not whether the primary topic claim has been shown to be incorrect, but whether the claim has been shown to be correct. If the primary topic claim is not shown to be correct, then the article in question should not be at the plain undisambiguated name. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you weigh in on the discussion going on in the India talk page. We have reached a standstill and could help benefit from your views.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 19:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Regents! Yes, I suppose it looks like I'm completely obsessed with the names of Southeast Asian nations, heh. But the truth is I'm not firmly rooted in any Internet community, per say. A little on Youtube commenting; a little on tvtropes.org. But here, I'm more likely to just cruise articles idly and check my very limited watchlist to see if the naming issue has come up again, or if the Monkey Island game franchise is being misrepresented. - BaronGrackle ( talk) 13:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey RegentsPark!
I just resurfaced on the wp scene. Wow, so much has changed. Congrats on your adminship! (A little late, I know). I was going through my old archives, and found this and this! Wow, I feel old :D!! Amog | Talk • contribs 12:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi RegentsPark:
I saw your comments upon your edit on Taj Mahal. Requesting you to keep the references to temple claims to at least 3 reliable sources (links) - BBC, Stephan Knapp and http://veda.wikidot.com/taj-mahal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskilaar ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello RegentsPark. Your change to the restriction still leaves some '1RR' language in place. Presumably you meant to say '0RR', and with no reverts at all, a 'per day' should not be needed. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that! :P It's 116 St, as I've tried to clarify it.-- Pharos ( talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
So, was
this a violation of
WP:POINT?
Belated thanks for the bon voyage, too. Best regards,
TRANSPORTERMAN (
TALK)
17:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. But why? Problem with sentence phrasing or too much information? -- King Zebu ( talk) 19:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Administrator there is a complaint against you. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 14:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this a candidate for RD2? Mjroots2 ( talk) 06:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Someone moved it to "Chapa Rajput Dynasty", which is absurd.Even google book search for it returns 0 result.For more information vist the discussion page- title of article.SO i request you to move it back to its old title i.e Chapa (Gurjara) dynasty.I also request you to add it in your watch-list. Thank you Mkrestin ( talk) 04:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
To be frank, I'm a bit disappointed by your persistent support for YellowMonkey's behavior and actions. I was a bit dismayed when I read your this comment about a month ago but didn't bother respond as I realized that a person like YM didn't deserve a second of my thoughts and efforts and therefore, there was no point in carrying the discussion forward. But after going through the recent discussion over YM blocking Yogesh, I also realize that YM is an administrator with a heavy baggage of bias against India and Indian editors and will use any tactic, including insults and overuse of admin privileges, to quiet those who oppose his viewpoint. Moreover, his tremendous goodwill here gives him an impregnable immunity. For me, that is a bit disturbing.
If other Wikipedians fail to send a strong message to YM, then it is really sad for the future of this project. -- King Zebu ( talk) 17:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Looking forward to more contributions from you!
|
---|
|
This newsletter is automatically delivered by User:Od Mishehu AWB, operated by עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Ever since you were involved in the preliminary discussion on Non-Roman characters in article titles, there has been a separate proposal regarding the usage of Non-Roman characters in re-directs and DABs, and you may be interested in joining the discussions on this page. Your input will be appreciated. -- HXL 's Roundtable, and Record 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Please append the {{Template:ACE2010}}
template to the top of your election guide (User:RegentsPark/ArbVotes2010) so that people can navigate the guides and election pages more easily. Thanks,
Sven Manguard
Talk
05:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Haha! Well, I am woefully short on barnstars
But it's the thought that counts!
On a more serious note, I get really irked by wrongful implications of racism. Just yesterday I was called a telemarketer from Bangladesh by a paid editor from the States. Wikipedia really has no place for this -
Amog |
Talk •
contribs
07:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Mr Regent Park Why you people trying to hide the truth of fact regarding indian revolt of 1857? you dont have right to remove the information which should know to everyone. I condemned your action and suggest you to not to do again without discussion and information. I have already given my views on discussion and to Mr. Knight. Please refer that discussion. I hope you will respect and accept the truth. Regards ( Gurjeshwar ( talk) 03:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC))
Dear Regent
This is the small description which i added on that page, because without that inclusion the real fact can not be come to this world. The indian government and British gazzete tell this story. The revolt which started at Meerut fueled by the Gurjars villagers and policeman. Still Meerut is a majority city of Gurjars. And this is impossible to anyone to revolt without the help of local peoples.
Gurjars of Bijnor were fighting under the leadership of Gurjar leaders Kadam Singh and Dulal Singh. In the whole revolt Gurjars were fighting along with the Muslims. Gurjars in Mathura and Agra region also fought against the British and gave them a horrible period. That is why when the
revolt ended, the properties of the Gurjars were impounded. Gurjars in Ludhiyana, Firozpur, Gujaranwala, Sialkot, Gujarat, Jalandhar district, Kangada revolt against the British and tried to end the British rule but when the revolt failed, the properties were impounded by the British. Hundreds of villages in district Bulandshahar were ruined by the Britishers but Gujjars fought with
full strength. Not only had the Britishers declared Gujjars as criminal tribe by defining Criminal Tribes Act. However, in the freedom struggle of India, Gujjars were working as the main leaders of the Non Cooperation Movement of Mahatma Gandhi in the country.
History states that there were freedom fighters in each and every single Gujjar village of the
country.
So this should be included in this article. Without Gurjars/Gujjars The revolt cant be planned and implemented.
( Gurjeshwar ( talk) 03:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC))
Any chance that someone can fix this for me so that the negative numbers show up as integers? I can't get it to work. :( -- RegentsPark ( talk) 17:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. It seems user
Flobot222 (
talk ·
contribs) is (aggressively) promoting Hindu ideology on Wikipedia (please read what he wrote in his talk page). He's adding unecessary words, sentences in some articles suh as
Aryan, removing refs sentences in others (see
Iranian peoples).
I may mistake but it seems he's a sockpuppet of
Saddhiyama (
talk ·
contribs). Thank you.
Rajkris (
talk)
18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your restoration as being against current consensus. Please see WP:ANI#Usertalk Proposal for discussion. Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.
A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be ' Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying " WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.
This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
22:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :), nice saving of bureaucracy. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you removed your Arbcom guide from the standard template. It still appears in my alternative template at {{ ACE2010alt}} which has no official status. Would you like for me to remove it from there as well? (Or you can do it yourself.) I think your guide is useful but will defer to your wishes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comments and your support in your voter guide, as well as your other thoughtful observations. They are appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)