Jump to content

User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

Danjel

Dude, why did you close that? I've had to put up with Danjel's diatribes for a week at the AfD, and now I'm going to have to put up with them for another week at the merger, because despite what Dennis Brown said, Danjel won't back down from it. Could you at least ask Danjel to either tone down his lambastatory rhetoric towards me and/or splice on to Dennis' proposal that he throw in the towel at the merger discussion that's going nowhere? pbp 20:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Give Dennis a chance. I see that there is a discussion on his talk page and danjel has agreed to close the merger discussion. Perhaps it is best to leave it at that for now. (I've notified Dennis that you've left a message here and will leave all this to him.) --regentspark (comment) 20:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

Arain semi

Is it worth putting a 12 or 24 hour semi-protection on Arain? I think that we have an IP hopper in Karachi and they've not responded to either my edit summaries nor the notes I've left on the two user talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! --regentspark (comment) 16:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for help

Please take a look at Talk:Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia#Ideologically motivated vandalism (I did not title this section). Āryāvastra is uncivil and unwilling to listen to any argument. Any discussion that starts with ...it's obvious you don't know how to read is unlikely to end constructively. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 19:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi CK. I took a look but the material is not trivial and I don't have the time to delve into it. I'll take a closer look later this week. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The material is not the major issue here, civility is. Take a look at the latest comment there. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 13:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Apologies. I took only a cursory look. I've warned the other editor and will block him/her if this continues. --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll try explaining my point again in simpler language. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well done

Hi - You did really well - almost there - If anyone falls out you should be promoted - Congratulations on receiving so much support from the community - carry on the way your going and a re run will be a clear certainty. Thank you for offering to assist the community as an Arbiter - Youreallycan 20:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably better this way :) --regentspark (comment) 20:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
As I've said in my (late) guide, you were one of the most promising candidates. Keep up the good work for another year and, if you haven't recovered your sanity by then and reconsidered the idea of wanting it, you'll get a seat when you run.  :-) — Coren (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I did a lot better than I expected, so that's something anyway. Congrats on your re-election!--regentspark (comment) 01:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
A good showing, bettering the guide projections -- that appears to be an achievement this cycle. Congratulations on getting so close with an almost unplanned and last-minute candidacy. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 01:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
A miss is as good as a mile :) Though I think I would've liked the thinking work that goes, or should go anyway, into arbitration, I must admit I'm also a bit relieved! Back to work I guess. --regentspark (comment) 02:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Results

You did great and I did support you. I was expecting you to pass but you fell short just by few !votes. I hope you'll get it next time. Cheers. TheSpecialUser TSU 02:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TSU. I must say I'm impressed by your work around the encyclopedia so it's good to have your vote of confidence. --regentspark (comment) 02:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Congratulations

Well done, and there's always next year. I only voted for two candidates, including you. --Claritas § 21:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a long shot, and I suspect it'll always be a long shot. But, nothing attempted nothing gained! --regentspark (comment) 21:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations from me too. You almost made it in what some have described as a status quo election. If nothing else, it shows the kind of support you enjoy in the community at large and of course at WP:IN. Also wanted to let you know that you can take your time with Talk:Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia. My arguments are all set, there are no new objections and I'll be off wikipedia for a week. So, in these holidays, I won't be pestering you with please comment here... kind of messages. Happy Holidays! Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 11:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy Holidays to you too CorrectKnowledge. I'll be off for a couple of weeks and am attempting something I haven't done in years - a laptop free vacation! --regentspark (comment) 14:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Add mine to the ones above, Reg. Good try and you had my support, as always. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks T Man. Happy holidays to you. Hope you have something fun planned!--regentspark (comment) 22:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

Although I expect that all the successful candidates (present and former arbitrators who were reelected as well as the newcomers) will do a fine job of arbitrating, I thought I should mention here that I would have been very glad if you had been among those elected. I hope that you will remain interested in dispute resolution on Wikipedia and expect that with another year of such experience under your belt, you will be well-positioned for election next year should you choose to run again.

Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Brad and congrats on your spectacular and well deserved re-election. About next year, to paraphrase Scarlett "2013 is another year"! --regentspark (comment) 14:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirect loop?

Hi RegentsPark, just wondering if you had meant to create a self-redirect at Amity University Dubai. I've been seeing goofy self-redirects, so I'm just not sure if this was a MediaWiki bug or your actual input. Thanks! Joe SchmedleyT* 06:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I mistakenly created the self-redirect. Thanks for fixing it. --regentspark (comment) 13:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.
Thanks. Happy Holidays (and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year) to you too! --regentspark (comment) 22:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Drop me a line

Hi RegentsPark. We're appointing some closing editors for the Jerusalem RFC, and you've been suggested as one of the closers. Could you drop me a line at wikiagk@gmail.com so that I can explain what the position will entail? Thanks! AGK [•] 14:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Image query

Do you think this is really an oil painting? It is a remarkable non-parallaxed photo if it is, and my mind is boggling at the idea that someone would deliberately paint in monochrome oils. OTOH, I can't find any similar image on the web other than mirrors and some stuff at Facebook & an NSS website that may or may not be other CC-BY-SA releases. And professional photographers can produce output of this quality, as is evidence by photos on paintings on museum/art gallery websites. - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks more like a photograph to me. Also, since the person died in 1971, the uploader must be 60+ to have painted it while he was alive. Possible, but unlikely. --regentspark (comment) 15:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Help required

Hey RP, I made a mistake in moving a page 2012 Delhi gang rape case. It was moved to Jyoti Singh Pandey rape case‎ without any consensus by a user so in a hurry I edited the contents and switched them, I did it as there was some issue with my browser. but now I see that the whole history is gone, is there a way I can correct my mistake? --sarvajna (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Salvio has fixed it. The history doesn't really disappear but merely gets misplaced! --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes Salvio did it, thanks --sarvajna (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Taj Mahal and Indian English

On a completely unrelated note to the 1RR restriction, there was a discussion and consensus on Taj Mahal and Indian English (here and here). JHunterJ's revert[1] mentions this. I am also not sure what you meant by Are there other ways of referring to that building in other variants of English? MOS:TIES, from what I understand, is concerned with the language used in the article rather than the title of the article. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 12:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

My point was that the example should be something that is clearly different in Indian English otherwise it is meaningless. The Usain Bolt example just above the Taj Mahal one is equally meaningless and adds a new variant as well and should be removed. Examples should provide clear illustrations otherwise what's the point of them (other than, as it appears to be the case in these two cases, to institutionalize something). Your lean tense examples were better (but need to be sourced!). --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Violation of restriction under an ArbCom ruling

RegentsPark, as an admin who has acted at WT:MOS in recent times you must be aware of a special restriction placed on WP:MOS and WT:MOS as a unit. You participated in this WP:ANI thread where the restriction was notified, and you acted as an admin in response to that ANI discussion. The restriction, which expires on 15 January, is also clearly notified at the top of WT:MOS.

I see that you did two reverts at WP:MOS today, the second coming within four hours of the first: diff of revert 1; diff of revert 2. In fact, the two reverts are identical; and you made them as an involved editor, not as an uninvolved admin – as your related posts at WT:MOS clearly show.

As as editor uninvolved in the dispute, rather than reporting the apparent violation to WP:ANI I have come here to ask for your explanation and remediation at WT:MOS.

Thank you! Best wishes,

NoeticaTea? 23:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Noetica, I don't think the first one (@16:57) is a revert, is it? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on your interpretation of some technical niceties. I had thought that WP:1RR was typically interpreted broadly, as a severe measure to counter edit-warring; and it is fairly clear that RegentsPark was engaged in edit-warring. Note the recent history, with edits such as this one. RP removed that addition, twice within a four-hour period. I have therefore requested an explanation. NoeticaTea? 02:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If no-one else is complaining then surely the best thing is to leave this alone? There are more important things with which to concern ourselves than policy wonkery. Building content, for example, has got to rank higher than scratching an itch. - Sitush (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sitush, thank you for not caring. ♥ Should I stalk your contributions to find something I don't care about, too? I just want to see RegentsPark's explanation for what is reasonably described as edit-warring at the core of Wikipedia's manual of style, subject to almost the tightest available restrictions to prevent such conduct. NoeticaTea? 05:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Noetica, I cannot recall ever seeing your name before so there has certainly been no stalking going on. All I'm saying is that sometimes it is possible to get bogged down in what the wording of a policy/ArbCom ruling says rather than, for example, its practical effect. If you are thinking of reporting RP for a breach of 1RR then you should do so because it is a bright line and there are no exceptions - no amount of explaining here would get round it & so there is nothing to ask of RP On the other hand, you could just do nothing. Which would appear to be what everyone else has decided to do. - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Where do I suggest that you stalked me? I simple responded to this light-hearted template at the start of your post: "(talk page stalker)". Drop it! I am reporting no one. I am at RP's talkpage. Go and do something that interests you, in areas you are familiar with – as I am intimately familiar with the development of MOS. NoeticaTea? 06:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Noetica, several people watch this page and "TPS" is normal usage (as used for example by NYB). You have made whatever WP:point you intended to make, both here and also in the highlighted comment you added on the MOS talk page. Please could you stop posting here now? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
What point do you intend about that template? I simply mentioned it in my second reply to Sitush, who used it in turning up out of the blue and engaging me in an unwanted conversation. And now, I seem to be diverted into an unwanted conversation with you too.
I have no "wp:point" to make, so I cannot have made it already (as you assert I have). I came here and articulated a legitimate concern and requested an explanation. That's all. Now please: I want to wait, patiently and in peace, to see that explanation.
NoeticaTea? 07:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The MOS arbcom remedies were not crafted to deal with the nebulous issues of spoken vs written Indian English. Nevertheless you decided to template a regular here and on WT:MOS. Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci, does the option of going away not occur to you, at this stage? I thought I had fully explained everything, addressing all grounds for confusion. Now, understand: The basis for those ArbCom remedies was difficulties at WP:TITLE and WP:MOSCAPS, not at WP:MOS. But the ArbCom resolution was phrased generally, and so are the conditions imposed by admin Guerillero for WP:MOS. They apply to all editing at WP:MOS and WT:MOS (until 15 January), and to all editors. I was among the first to support them, when he proposed them in a thread at WP:ANI. For that reason, and because of my abiding and famous pursuit of orderly process in the development of MOS, I take up this issue with RegentsPark. ♥
NoeticaTea? 08:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
If you're so sure you're right, why not make a report at WP:ANEW or WP:AE? You could even make a Request for clarification. That way you can see whether your warnings were justified or not. Personally I agree with ErikHaugen's assessment. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your impressions. Feel free to stop doing so at any time, though. I'm not pretending to certainty. Nor, it seems, is Erik Haugen. Are you? I am not interested in reporting anyone to anywhere. I came here to ask for an explanation, on what I view as a serious matter – a view shared by ArbCom, and by admin Guerillero. ☺
NoeticaTea? 08:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason why you are being unnecessarily rude to me and to Mathsci? As far as I am aware, there has been no prior involvement and we have just been trying to set things straight in the absence of RegentsPark (who has not long since returned from a break). Your laying into me was based on a complete misunderstanding by yourself and the same appears to apply to Mathsci. That it also applies to RP seems pretty certain. Why not just drop it or, at least, go have a cup of tea? - Sitush (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Funny, Sitush. I'm so glad you came back. I wanted about to ask you: Have you stopped strangling cats yet, or is that just an optimistic rumour?
You came here, to a talkpage not your own, and belittled my concern about a central guideline for the Project (under strict conduct restraints) as "policy wonkery". And you censure me for gratuitous rudeness? You make a reference to your "stalking", and then you thickly fail to understand my using the same notion in my reply? You object to my raising a concern (and apparently to my not rushing to report RP) on the slender basis that no one else has yet raised it? Mathsci refers me to an essay about not confronting regulars with templated warnings, when I did nothing of the sort?
Remind me: why am I talking to you?
NoeticaTea? 10:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I've no idea what you are on about regarding the stalking stuff - you appear either massively to have misunderstood a common usage (perhaps you are new here?) or you phrased your response very poorly. In either event, if you want to stop talking about it then feel free. Policy wonkery was not a reference to yourself but rather a general comment about when it is worth pursuing something. Either put up or shut up: report RP or desist because it is already clear that no explanation from RP is likely to satisfy your curiosity. If you don't want to talk to me then you do not have to. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
[2] Mathsci (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sitush:
Nonsense. It is perfectly normal to ask for an explanation at an editor's talkpage, and ridiculous to assert that it is preferable to skip that cautious and civil intermediate step and simply report to ANI, or some other bearpit. (Why are you here, still?)
Mathsci:
Desperately and shamelessly dishonest. Since you snooped at my talkpage, you might also have reported that the text was later struck by that admin, as an error: "come to think of it, this is the best and most fair action". ☺
NoeticaTea? 11:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like a clear case of one rule for admins and another rule for non-admins. It's this kind of nonsense that gives admins a bad name in the community. I'd also like to hear RegentsPark's explanation. Tony (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, the first diff is not a revert. It is an edit. If the first edit to that page were counted as a revert as you are saying then nobody could edit it as any edit of existing content would violate 1RR. How long ago was the stuff RP removed added? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of edits at exactly the same point on WP:MOS, over five days during unfinished discussion of that point:

  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7]
  • [8]
  • [9]
  • [10]
  • [11] Regent's Park ("remove Taj Mahal (see talk)")
  • [12] Timrollpickering ("revert pending discussion, don't pre-empt it")]
  • [13] Regent's Park Undid revision 531812798 by Timrollpickering (talk) Hmm. BRD or BRDR? (see note on your talk page)) [Within four hours of edit 10]

Context:

1.2) All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.

Now, if RegentsPark had intervened as an admin, acting under those restrictions imposed by Guerillero, or under the remedies that underlay those restrictions, I would not have been surprised. I was surprised that RegentsPark joined in that edit-warring. RegentsPark had participated in the ANI thread that discussed those restrictions, and had earlier intervened as an admin in a dispute, prompted by that same thread.

I did not rush to report the matter; I did not impose a standard template here. Instead, I came here to ask for an explanation, for which I am still waiting. All clear now?

NoeticaTea? 11:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Noetica is correctly pointing to the 1RR bright line rule so lets not give him/her grief over that. I'm not sure if this is a violation of that rule. First, as Erik Haugen points out, I'm not sure if the removal counts as a revert. But, second, and more importantly, the text that I removed was added recently and has resulted in a big change in the guideline. Clearly such changes should be discussed first and added later and my revert of Timrollpickering was based on the assumption that he assumed I was removing a piece of long standing text from the guideline. I explained this on his talk page and don't really see an edit war in progress. Whether this is a violation on a technicality is open to question but clearly it is not a violation of the spirit of the rule. However, if it is generally felt that this is a technical violation, I'll be happy to revert myself and either allow someone else to undo my revert or remove it again after 24 hours. The larger point is that guidelines should not be subject to casual change (but, of course, a rule is a rule!). Apologies for the late response but I've just returned from a long stretch of travels and, you know, errands, errands. (Also, I'll be back offline again for a couple of hours, so bear with me.) --regentspark (comment) 12:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my serious enquiry seriously, RP. Let me come back later, perhaps after some more comments, and give my considered reply. Then we can move on, of course.
Best wishes,
NoeticaTea? 13:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
RegentsPark, wouldn't it be more practical and socially harmonious to simply say something like, "Yeah, you're right, I shouldn't have done that". Then we'd all feel better and move on. Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
That's true. I should have asked on the talk page before reverting tim. (Honestly, I was unaware of the restriction. Perhaps I've just forgotten that I had come across it before but don't pay enough attention to MOS issues, which are usually too arcane for me, to internalize procedural stuff there.) --regentspark (comment) 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Now that's good adminning, Regents. Thanks! Tony (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

RP: as the editor who raised this, I am glad you have made that admission. I hope other commenters in the discussion above will take note, and in future not rush unthinkingly to support an admin against an editor who quite reasonably seeks an explanation. We may wonder what consideration an ordinary editor would get at ANI, after editing as you did at a page plainly marked as subject to 1RR. And remember: you had already acted administratively at that page while it was under discretionary sanctions. Lessons to be learned all round, perhaps. ☺
Best wishes,
NoeticaTea? 00:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Hello

Would you be so kind as to intervene in this sorry discussion [14], my patience is being severely tested. Please sift through the discussion quickly and offer your viewpoint before things go out of control. Mar4d (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This revert of sourced content to an unsourced version may help put things in context. Mar4d (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Not really sure what I can do. Looks like a content dispute (who started it and when - if I read the discussion correctly). Hopefully you all will work it out but let me know if anyone crosses the line. --regentspark (comment) 18:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but gotta comment here, Mar's "patience is being severely tested" he got reverted at 15:42, 18 January 2013, and posted here 15:54, 18 January 2013, perhaps he should seek an anger management course rather than going off the deep end within less that ten minutes. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
He should also seek some course on "How to behave" [15] deranged lunatics ah? --sarvajna (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Report on Pondicherry

I have been working on the Pondicherry links. I did 30 to 40 of them, but there is still a huge number left to do, something like 1,400. My sense is that the vast majority of these are historical and therefore refer to city. (I am interpreting everything pre-1963 as referring to the city.) I hope we don't need to put in hundreds of [[Pondicherry (city)|Pondicherry]] links just to see the page moved. Kauffner (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the links probably work for the city anyway so we should be able to move the city to Pondicherry and not really have to redo the links. For example, any links to Pondicherry University with the location in it could easily point to the city rather than the Union Territory (cf. Madras_Crocodile_Bank_Trust). --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment re: ANI

I'm a bit surprised and disappointed by this, as I was considering it a pretty serious breach of CIVIL and NPA for someone to basically say "who the hell are you to criticize my position here, as your contributions to these completely unrelated articles suck?" I've honestly never seen anyone resort to that, and I think it should be considered completely unacceptable conduct. Just as with his nitpicking over how someone has phrased something to the extent of reading insults that weren't there, it's a complete waste of time to be drawn into defending something you yourself haven't offered as an example relevant to the discussion. I was reluctant to post at ANI in the first place because I don't want to spend my limited time on here dealing with editor misconduct, but after he was unrelentingly hostile for days and making his comments ever more personal I decided to try to put a stop to it. I'm not going to defend Pigsonthewing as there did seem to be something personal there between them, but it was otherwise KW leveling attacks and accusations at other editors, who were perhaps disdainful of his stance but not otherwise hostile towards him, and then reacting with outrage when he was criticized for it. That just seems to me like trolling. So it's hard for me not to see this as just sweeping problems under the rug, particularly given how quickly you closed the discussion, before any of the other VPP participants could even comment, and it's easier to say "fault all around" than to really deal with someone's persistent problems interacting with other users. postdlf (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Better this way. No one was totally clean here and nobody did anything particularly egregious either and the complaint would have devolved into a pointless he said, she said sort of discussion. Waste of time. --regentspark (comment) 23:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Postdlf, esq.
Your ANI posting's title was so excessive that it hurt your case.
If you and others did not intend to insult my editing, then you and several others at times wrote badly (or at least ambiguously) and should have revised what you wrote. Yet, none of you has withdrawn or rephrased such apparent insults.
This is an encyclopedia, and editors should write their intentions in standard written English, limiting their contributions to properly expressed reasonable intentions.
To engage in self-criticism, which I recommend, I should have written for example "vocabulary-deficiently named" rather than "idiotically named" were I worried that others would mistake my idiomatic adverb. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Talk:First Anglo-Maratha War

[16]

I would not start the discussion to move only one article. Please, either fix Jprg1966’s damage to remaining ~50 (sorry, I do not know exact number) of articles, or take your {{polltop}} back. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to the others. Rome wasn't built in a day. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Dover Lane Music Conference

Dover Lane is a road. Music conference, I guess could avoid capitalization. But, for example, in news items in the telegraph, kolkata, can see use of 'Music Conference' in all.--GDibyendu (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your capitalization is correct. Without the m and c capitalized, it would mean that the event is at Dover Lane. Tito has already done the move so we're good to go. (Do they still do the all night sessions at the festival?) --regentspark (comment) 17:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

--regentspark (comment) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)== WT:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/1‎‎ ==

Hi RP, a vandal reverted your post, and I can't undo that because there's an intervening edit. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. I'll paste in my responses again, perhaps tomorrow. --regentspark (comment) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Procrastination worked. It got done :) --regentspark (comment) 14:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Science and technology in India

Hi,If this section is inserted with some summary then i think it would be allowed to remain there as i mentioned about it on talk page too.Thanx---zeeyanketu talk to me 22:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

you can't really have an entire section that just links to other articles. Let me think about a good way to include science and technology in the article. --regentspark (comment) 02:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok!,Thanx---zeeyanketu talk to me 03:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Barnstar

The Guidance Barnstar
Thanks for jumping in and answering my question on WP:INB! I appreciate you and all your contributions to Wikipedia! With regards, AnupamTalk 20:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Much appreciated! --regentspark (comment) 21:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome! There, you stated that it was acceptable to add official scripts to geographical related articles in the infobox only. I did so for the article about Delhi, where Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi are the official languages. Can you review this addition here? I look forward to hearing from you soon! With regards, AnupamTalk 21:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Well balanced! --regentspark (comment) 22:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

RM

When you are going to move Uma Shankar Singh! You forgot to move Talk:Dover Lane Music Conference too which I moved later. and write the word "moved" or "not moved" in bold! --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I figured you'll do the honors - the target doesn't exist. Am happy to do the move if yo like. I hadn't moved Dover Lane because I wasn't sure about the title and had asked GDibyendu a question about it when you moved it (which was fine). --regentspark (comment) 17:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Article freeze

Noticed that you just froze Peter Proctor. Why this in the face of what seems to be a concensus of several editors? Just one editor's rather untutored opinion is simply not enough to justify it. As I have noted repeatedly, the material requested is in the citations and in the wikipage pointed too. I have posted a copy of the relevant material from the linked page on talk:Peter Proctor. It is even the subject of a chapter in a major textbook. I have always done such wikilinks, rather than put the material on a primary page and cluttering it up.

Also, this article was recently taken to arbitration and turned down. user:noleander seems to be trying for another bite at the apple. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander for some of his prior history of tendentious editing. Nucleophilic (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Added note: Contrary to assertions, this page is not "unwatched", but is undergoing active editing by several different editors. This seems like an admin overreach. Nucleophilic (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. Like I said in my note on the talk page, you can always argue your points there. If you believe that the citations are reliable, I suggest taking it to the WP:RSN noticeboard. I have no idea who is right or wrong but, if you're right, then there is clear path to getting your edits in and making sure they stay in the article. --regentspark (comment) 18:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Properly, it was user:Noleader's job to take this to the WP:RSN noticeboard, rather than most incivilly elevating it to an admin action. Similarly, since when did a few reversions over several days to weeks in the face of an emerging concensus become "edit warring"? This grossly-elevates normal wikipedia give and take and inhibits free editing.
When I joined wikipedia, it was three in a day or something that was clear and present. This still seems the general rule. It is also a big deal to freeze an actively-edited page with 7-8 recent editors for a month over the objections of one contentious editor who had already been turned down in an arb action and who has barely-escaped banning in the past. Sort of one-sided thing that scares off expert editors. Nucleophilic (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Generally, it is the side adding a source that needs to make the case for addition. Like I said, this isn't meant as a comment on your editing or that of noleander and it's not a big deal. If your edits are fine, it is a fairly simple matter to seek wider opinion and get consensus on them. That way, they'll be more solid as well and we'll all be better off. --regentspark (comment) 18:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Point being, there already is wp:concensus on the talk page. There is no reason that this should change on WP:RSN, but a bit of bother. My impression has been that WP:RSN is for when there is no such concensus. Likewise, forum shopping is also a violation of the rules. I also continue to protest the updefinition of normal wikipedia give and take to "edit warring" sufficient to freeze the page for a month. Admins are not supposed to do such things, whatever their many and undoubted contributions to the project, particularly the India-related pages. Ah well. I have been here long enough that nothing surprises any more. Nucleophilic (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm really doing you a favor by forcing you to seek consensus from a wider set of editors. Narrow consensus based on the views of three/four editors of the sort you're referring to is inherently unstable while wider consensus, from the broader and more disinterested community, is more stable. You seem to be convinced that your material is good, so go out and get that wider consensus. An RfC, dispute resolution, RSN for narrow sourcing questions - there are plenty of venues out there. It may be a bit of a bother but that's the way Wikipedia ensures quality. --regentspark (comment) 22:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Just found out about this action. Apparently, it was my single reversion of Noleander's deletion edit that precipitated it. Hardly "edit warring" or if it is, this has been greatly updefined recently, as noted above. So how is anybody to know what is or is not such? Also, IIRC, in such cases, when freezing a page the admin is supposed to favor the restoration over the deletion while things get worked out. Likewise, what is the point of trying to work things out on the talk-page when Noleander simply admin-shops anything he does not like? This is the second go-round. Sorry for my momentary lapse in assume good faith. Drjem3 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said to Nucleophilic, you guys would be much better off directing this energy toward getting a broader consensus for your material. Re your other points, you might want to read WP:BURDEN. --regentspark (comment) 01:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

About Ban

You have forgot to specify the reason on my talk page Himesh84 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting verified materials from obi2canibe

As I stated in the talk page, I am unable to verify obi2canibe claims (Tamil heritage out side of Sinhalese kingdom, standardization,CC act had impact on SLT to wear arms) from web, books (google). But since you blocked me regarding this seems like there are materials. Can you take responsibility and get facts from Obi2canibe ?. I am very much happy to include his concerns but only after receiving references Himesh84 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't blocked you from anything. Just from adding tags to the page. Let me take a deeper look (am busy at work for a bit). --regentspark (comment) 17:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I am also talking about ban. sorry about misspell. No problem. Take time Himesh84 (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you should re think about my ban since I am in a process of inserting obicanibe's suggestions to Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka even his unverified claims looks very odd. You can visit Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka page and see the new content. Thanks Himesh84 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've asked Qwyrxian for comment. --regentspark (comment) 19:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I can see it is on process. Can you do me another help ? I have fixed the concerns raised by obi2canibe in the article. I promised him to insert rest of the things when I got the lists from him in the talk-page. Can you please ask obi2canibe to withdraw tags since now I can do little work until I get information he have ? Himesh84 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Your loony offer

RegentsPark, I admire you in many ways, but about the loony offer: Well, yeah, it is, a bit. Have you forgotten previous experiences? Bishonen | talk 15:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC).

Crazy, isn't it. I can already see my talk page filled with a hundred reasons why my "shut up and move on" suggestion is not only misguided but also hopelessly asinine, uncivil and against every policy that no one has ever heard of! (I guess I'm just an inveterate optimist!) --regentspark (comment) 15:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
[Ominously.] Well, you're probably not crazy yet. (Please note that I don't have a sharply separate memory of your mentorship of M as distinguished from other mentors, but) I do remember a general tendency of those mentors to be drawn into a folie à deux, or folie à quatre or however many the mentors were, so, yes, these jobs are dangerous. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC).
I was definitely suckered in by Mattisse so thanks for that timely reminder. But there are a couple of differences. b2c is harder to feel sorry for. And, to be perfectly honest, I don't really care if an article is at Detroit or Detroit, Michigan. Hopefully no one will take me up on the offer so all this is moot anyway. regentspark (comment) 16:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Talkback

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir.
Message added 16:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Saffron Terror

Hi. Saying this here since I've just laid down a request not to get off topic on the DRN thread. Doesn't look so good for me to immediately take part in a tangential discussion, however interesting. (Btw, you are commenting there as a volunteer and not an involved editor, right?)

If the article was nominated for deletion again I think I'd be voting move to Hindu terrorism or delete, certainly not keep where it is. And I'd be sorely tempted to nominate it, were it not for the DRN discussion, which I definitely think ought to be finished before anyone considers doing anything else. The speedy deletion nomination seems to have been a complete mess, but the AfD discussion is dreadful. No consensus and a comment, with which I thoroughly agree, on how poor the debate was. Shocking arguments. So-and-so is (not may be) extremely biased because they're Hindu. Everything that was there was terrible but you can keep what I just put in. Neologism policy means avoid topics that have recently been in the news (and is therefore wrong).

I'm most astonished by the number of places (not just the AfD discussion) I've heard it claimed that Hindu terrorism doesn't/can't exist because the religion has teachings against violence. If you give me half an hour I'll find the Gospel verses to back up essentially the same statement about Christianity, and we had Dracula. (Please don't ask me to actually find the verses. I could, but I really cba unless it's important.)

But as far as I can see it's about Hindu Terrorism - which certainly exists as a concept (Hindus could theoretically be terrorists even if it is the case that none actually are), and is at least alleged (hah) to have actually occurred - and Saffron Terror is a pandering-to-political-correctness euphemism that only exists to avoid saying Hindu and terrorism in the same sentence, and is barely, if at all, a proper term with an actual definition.

But the wretched thing will have to stay as it is at least until the DRN's finished with it, and I should probably shut up until then because I'm supposed to be all neutral and uninvolved. CarrieVS (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(See also my reply below.) Personally, if I see an argument that claims that Hindu terrorism cannot exist, I'd just dismiss it as coming from a POV pusher so I agree with what you've written above. That's what I meant about the Speedy delete notice, it was doomed to fail from the get go. The problem with this article is less about the content (I think) and more about the title since the acts described in it appears to have been ascribed to Hindu nationalists. (I guess I take back my statement about deleting the article, it is the neologism that is of concern, not so much the content. Terrorism by Hindu Nationalists perhaps?) --regentspark (comment) 03:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what this is about but I couldn't resist. There is a difference between Hindus who take to terrorism for random causes, Hindus who take to terrorism for Hindu nationalistic reasons and Hindus who have taken to terrorism for Hinduism as such. The first category definitely exists, the second one is alleged to exist and I can't think of any in the third one unless you relax the definition of terrorism to one with a wider scope. Saffron terror is the perfect term, here and in Indian context, because these terrorists (allegedly) have been inspired by Hindu nationalism, not Hinduism exclusively. The term is similar to another popular neologism used in India, red terror, which is used to describe fringe communist terrorists who are fighting for a maoist state. And the part about Hinduism "has teachings against violence" is not completely true. Doesn't a popular Hindu personality describe a popular Hindu hero as unmanly (yes it's sexist) when he refuses to pick up arms for a just cause in a popular Hindu scripture? Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 00:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Clearly Saffron Terror can only mean terrorism that is inspired by some sort of Hindu nationalism. It doesn't make sense in any other context. My concern is that the usage of the term is rather limited and almost every reference in the article is dated to after our Wikipedia article. For example, if you look at our article dated 31st December 2008 (this one), there are four references. The first puts saffron terror in quotes. The second does contain the term but is not reliable (South Asian Citizens Web?). The third makes no mention of Saffron Terror. The fourth is a dead link so I can't evaluate it. That smells very strongly of a neologism. CarrieVS is probably right that the article should be titled Hindu nationalism or some such thing. To me, this was a bit of a surprise since I assumed from the DRN notice that this was an accepted term. I don't have the time till next week but someone should make sure that each of the examples given in the article have been explicitly called "Saffron terror" and it is not just we Wikipedians who are associating acts of violence by Hindu nationalists and Saffron terror. --regentspark (comment) 03:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Somethings that I write here might overlap with what I have written at DRN First, it would be wrong to say that Hinduism has teachings against violence, yes there might be some teachings against mindless violence. Scriptures like Mahabharat and Ramayana are about wars. I belive that a Hindu can be a terrorist but the fact is that there are none. Saffron terror is mostly a political term and mostly used by politicians of Congress Party which is principally opposed to political party like Bharatiya Janata Party which is backed by most of the Hindu Nationalist Organizations. Any title like "Hindu Terrorism" or "Terrorism by Hindu Nationalist" would not work because there are no such proven incidents till now and I think in future the article can be moved to "Terrorism by Hindu Nationalist" when there is some judgement. Saffron can mean terrorism that is inspired by some sort of Hindu nationalism but there are no such terror incidents.--sarvajna (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
RK, let me take a look at the article and then comment. There are a number of incidents listed there that are, in my mind at least, connected to Hindu nationalism. Note that this doesn't mean that these acts are organized by nationalistic bodies like the RSS but rather that there was a Hindu ideology that motivated the individuals who committed them. But, I don't know a whole lot about this so I'm not sure I know how to respond to your comment without a more detailed look. --regentspark (comment) 16:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The AN comment

RegentsPark, you made this comment recently about me on the AN about my behavior:

After reading some of the comments below (ErikHaugen, PBS, etc.), I should add that I agree that B2C generally makes good points and should definitely not be silenced. The caveat is that he can be excessively persistent, almost (if not quite) to the point of tendentiousness. There is nothing wrong with arguing a point to death if you're not the only one holding a view but, if you keep doing that after a consensus has been established, that can be very frustrating. If b2c voluntarily agreed to back off when he's losing an argument, that would be perfect. But, I note that that's already been tried. With some trepidation, I'm willing to serve as his "time to shut up" mentor for option D if that's something people are willing to consider.

There is something I don't understand here. I thoroughly agree with this:

There is nothing wrong with arguing a point to death if you're not the only one holding a view but, if you keep doing that after a consensus has been established, that can be very frustrating.

If I'm the only one advocating a view in an RM or RfC discussion, I always back off. And in discussions where the position I support has clear consensus there is not much to say either. It's on the issues where consensus needs to grow in one direction or the other where I tend to spend most of my time and energy. My effort is to build consensus through discussion, not so much with those with whom I'm discussing, but with someone who might be on the fence who is reading the discussions. That is, there are those who are debating, and those are who presumably reading the debates before they make up their minds. They, the unseen, are a strongly considered secondary, if not primary, audience, generally. But if I'm the only one promoting a view, I'm going to stay pretty silent. Even in that AN, initially all the responses were in support of a strong sanction; it was not until a few editors spoke up in my defense that I became very active in that discussion.

So, please do not be left with the impression that I keep arguing a point to death when I'm the only one holding that view, or after a consensus has been established. In fact, key to my long-held positions at Talk:Yogurt and WT:PLACE is that there was no consensus on those respective issues. That's no longer the case at Yogurt, but it is at USPLACE, as demonstrated by the lack of consensus in the last two RfCs there.

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries B2c. I don't subscribe to the view that you're a menace to Wikipedia. But, you should bear in mind that editors with strong views on any topic, particularly style related ones, are more often than not drummed out of here. Right or wrong, that's something worth considering. --regentspark (comment) 15:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark/Archive_16&oldid=1151042375"