Jump to content

User talk:RegentsPark: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,037: Line 1,037:
:I think it's all been explained reasonably well. The rest is up to born2cycle. --[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark#top|talk]]) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:I think it's all been explained reasonably well. The rest is up to born2cycle. --[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark#top|talk]]) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
::The bottom line is that I was falsely accused of misrepresenting policy (which implies acting in bad faith), without any indication whatsoever of how policy was supposedly misrepresented, and disagreeing with policy (again without any basis whatsoever). If false accusations are not personal attacks made specifically to disparage the person they are directed at, what are they? --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
::The bottom line is that I was falsely accused of misrepresenting policy (which implies acting in bad faith), without any indication whatsoever of how policy was supposedly misrepresented, and disagreeing with policy (again without any basis whatsoever). If false accusations are not personal attacks made specifically to disparage the person they are directed at, what are they? --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
:::There are personal attacks and there is rhetoric. This is just rhetoric. Asking for an explanation as to how your view disagrees with policy is the right thing to do. (Though, I would not have framed it the way you have done. Too defensive and you have lost the moral high ground. Never a good place to be in a contentious discussion.) --[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark#top|talk]]) 19:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 25 October 2010 ==
== ''The Signpost'': 25 October 2010 ==

Revision as of 19:15, 3 November 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Requested move of Punjab_(Pakistan)

I have requested a move of Punjab (Pakistan) to Punjab (Pakistani province). You may wish to express your opinion on the talk page.

comment placement

Your comment at | this ANI thread is misplaced. Would you mind not putting it in the middle of the discussion between me and Yworo? Thanks? David.Kane (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone has moved it. My apologies, the misplacement was inadvertent. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr

Since you have commented at length on topic bans for SPAs active on race related articles, please see the current Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Race and intelligence. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look next week (still traveling). --RegentsPark (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR Race and intelligence

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayawati

Regents Park hi. I have requested protection of Mayawati again. The edit warring is massive. Please assist. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. Elockid did it. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Move req

Pls see Talk:Pratap_Singh_of_Mewar#Requested_move - uncontroversial. Arjuncodename024

Isn't he better known as 'Rana Pratap'?--RegentsPark (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, i am confused. I guess the request at the talk page must be given its due course.Arjuncodename024 20:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Blackwood

Regents, would you please take a few minutes to look at the edit war, incivility fest, and all–around brawl that's going on at Nicola Blackwood. I opined there, then warned both of them about personal attacks and they both just keep after it and complain to me about each other. Thanks, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting debate. But I see that it is protected so I guess I'm off the hook! --RegentsPark (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nonetheless, for taking a look. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Hemant Karkare

Can u pls have a look at the latest developments at Hemant Karkare - i strongly feel they are WP:FRINGE; more so sources furnished are twocircles.net, hardnewsmedia.com etc. Just thought you would be the ideal guy for this. Arjuncodename024 07:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted those edits for the time being. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I noticed you just removed an entire section from the Hemant Karkare page. It's a very hot and debatable top I agree, but labeling it as WP:FRINGE is ridiculous! Deleting rather than editing is not going to help. Arjun appears to have a WP:SPA and has been constantly deleting sections from the Hemant Karkare page, coming up with some new weird reason each time.
As for the sources, HardNewsMedia is the South Asian partner of Le Monde diplomatique, Paris, France.
TwoCircles.net - a very respectable news website based in USA.
IbnLive - CNN-IBN is a partnership between Global Broadcast News (GBN), a Network18 Company, and Turner International (Turner) in India. If you like I can provide more sources! SuchiBhasin (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for deleting the content was not because of the sources. Rather, the material takes a few news stories (the IBN ones are more like opinions and the twocircles is an interview) and then constructs a 'controversy' section by stringing these together. That is both WP:SYNTH as well as WP:UNDUE. I don't know much about the topic itself but, if the death of Mr. Karkare is considered controversial, then there must be more reliable sources (articles in magazines or leading newspapers) that make the same points. I suggest focusing on those sources. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fwd:sock-puppet

The following is a query from an anon i received on my talk page; I thought its better to forward it to you since i do not know really know anything about the sock puppet stuff.

Sock puppetry on Hemant Karkare

The following users are probably sock puppets:

They are edit-warring on the article in tandem. Perhaps you should file a sock puppetry report and also put a complaint at WP:RFPP.117.194.197.61 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arjuncodename024 10:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking after the fwdd query. Arjuncodename024 16:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for taking care of the move. NickCT (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: arborsculpture

Hello RegentsPark. While I appreciate your help in moving things forward, you have closed a discussion on this page move, I feel, too hastily. Given the easily hundreds of hours that have gone into the discussion, just on the move itself, let alone during what clearly was a 3 year long battle on the page itself, it is difficult to imagine that you might have adequately considered, much less fully appreciated the depth of the issues discussed, in one hour of study for your closing. The reason I say this is that it took me almost 2 months to understand what had happened after I started working on that page this past April.

One point that you have clearly not addressed is the fact that the phrase 'tree shaping', which was arbitrarily and capriciously chosen in the first place, off the discussion page and completely without consensus, is itself not at all neutral. Your closing explanation seems to conflate the trade name Pooktre, with the phrase used to re-title the page. Pooktre is an established trade name of the questionable editors. It is not at all generic, nor in common usage, and is thus not under any consideration as a title for the page. Clear consensus was already reached that the current page title is unsatisfactory. We have carefully and clearly documented, concerning the phrase 'tree shaping' that:

1. This phrase is being used inappropriately and not generically, by one pair of involved editor/author/artists, posting under a single user name, in a long and nasty campaign both on and off-wiki, to benefit themselves and disparage another editor/author/artist, and
2. This phrase is also, perversely enough, in well-entrenched common usage to describe a different subject: arboriculture, a point that was raised early on and had strong consensus.

I do understand that it is entirely your option to re-list or not, and to move or not, based on the strength of the arguments for & against, but do you not think, given the consensuses that were reached by non-involved editors and also given that the discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, that relisting would have been more appropriate in this case?

I agree with Martin Hogbin that a closing discussion is needed to reach further consensus. Without one that is satisfactory to all participating editors, and not just to the one involved editor who precipitated the original and very suspicious change, I feel that the editing atmosphere on that page is unlikely to improve and thus that the page itself is likely to suffer, not least in terms of content dilution. A page titled 'tree shaping' can no longer describe the specific and fascinating art that the article content presently describes (and which is and has been for many decades practiced by those artists detailed therein), but must instead also encompass fully all the myriad other arboricultural practices inherent in the actual activities of shaping trees. There would be no reason (or space) in such an article to include any of these inosculation artists, or their craft, at all. See? Duff (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the Requested Move should have been closed as no consensus, that seems clear, I do not think your move and subsequent protect of the article was the best representation of WP policy. I agree that Martin should have started a new RfM, but he felt being bold was the best course of action. I would remind you that the first article move was done in the same way with no discussion whatsoever, at least Martin had support for the move before he undertook it. I have listed my points on the talk page in question. I hope you see fit to respond there. Thanks, Colincbn (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the headsup. I notice that there is an extended discussion and will respond later tonight (a tad busy in RL). --RegentsPark (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Karkare

Hello,

i strongly disagree with your removing of sourced material: there is a reliable source, in the form of a book (Who killed Karkare ?). Even if sockpuppets have shown up there, I was mainly responsible for the section. Please also note that the IP that asked for deletion (117.194.197.61)was probably a sockpuppet of indef banned user Hkelkar. For these reasons, I strongly demand you revert to my edited version. We can discuss and change it according to contradictory sources, but certainly not remove it. Thanks. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 18:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be ok to include a section on the controversy surrounding Mr. Karkare's death, the deleted version, which includes fringe allegations of Israeli conspiracies and unequivocal statements that say that he was not killed by the Mumbai terrorists is not tenable. Also, the length of the controversy section seems way undue. My suggestion is that you work on a toned down version of the section that does not overstate the controversy. I see no reason why that would not be acceptable. About the IP, I'm no expert on sockpuppets so I'll ask YellowMonkey to investigate. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, agree. My intention was to put a "controversy section" much more acceptable, by just referring to the book and the news articles that appeared in Indoa on this matter. I was in the process in re-arrangement when these sockpuppets and IP showned up. So please let me edit the article in that direction. Thanks. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 09:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before any rash decisions are made, I should point out that it was User:TwoHorned who added the part about the Israelis fomenting religious riots in India [1][2](and then edit-warring in order to keep it in). the absurd and conspiratorial language suggests bad faith editing. Furthermore, some of his sources are highly dubious, like this one, from a pro-Islamist website masquerading as a non-partisan news source (compare what they say about Zakir Naik[3], to what more reliable sources say about him [4][5]).117.194.193.101 (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, here is a sample of the extremely conspiratorial rhetoric found in TwoHorned's "Flagship source", a book by an Islamist sympathizer titled "Who Killed Karkare?" Can a book containing this type of militant rhetoric be considered a WP:RS?

[6]

[7]

[8].117.194.193.101 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the sockpuppets who were attacking the article on Hemant Karkare have now shifted their attention to Saffron Terror[9].117.194.193.101 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, besides the usual crap and personnal attacks typical of infdef banned user Hkelkar, please note that:
  • I didn't include the ref you're talking about.
  • The implication of israeli intelligence in the affair is not an invention of mine, but comes from the mentionned source book.
  • The controversy about the assination of 3 people, including Karkare, is something real in India.
  • There is a book and sourced material on it.
For me, that's all about it. I do intent to reduce the size of the section, and put it in more regular form, but pretend that is "fringe conspiracy" is non-sense and pov, given the proportion that is affair has taken in India. And,btw, "pressure on journalists" is not something particular to India. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 08:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TwoHorned is copy-pasting the same anti-Semitic nonsense into multiple articles, like 2008 Mumbai attacks and Indo-Israeli relations[10][11][12].59.160.210.68 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TwoHorned also appears to have a history of promoting Neo-Nazi conspiracy theories sources to dubious websites. See [13].59.160.210.68 (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd bet the anti-semitic-neo-nazi bullshit would appear soon. Bingo, Hkelkar ! I'm surprised noone noticed the use of multiple IP to evade block and R3R, by the way. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 14:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) No one is going to take any hasty actions here. The material on Karkare needs to be thrashed out on the talk page of the Hemant Karkare article first, before it is inserted in other articles as well. I've protected Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks as well until this is sorted out. 2008 Mumbai attacks also appears to be protected. Please sort this out on the talk page of Hemant Karkare before attempting to add this material to other articles. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to [14]. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 22:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting discussion. If I'm reading it correctly, there isn't much support for the way you are using your sources? --RegentsPark (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would ask you to add in the Controversy section yourself, now that it is recognized even by leading journalists like Vir Sanghvi: [15] Now it transpires that even Karkare could have been saved. People have always wondered how the bullets penetrated the bullet-proof jacket he was wearing. The Bombay Police responded by saying that a) he was shot in the neck so the jacket was no protection, b) that the jacket was perfectly good but c) the file pertaining to its purchase had been lost and d) even the jacket itself had miraculously vanished. Cool hindu (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Arborsculpture

Thanks for your involvement with the tree shaping article. (Sorry you ever discovered this article exists? I sure wish I never discovered it!) I'm contacting you because I feel that relevant verifiable evidence about the uses of the word "arborsculpture" wasn't properly reviewed in the recent renaming discussion. Do you happen to know the Wikipedia guidelines about when we would be allowed to bring the renaming issue to formal discussion again? Or is there any restriction on how soon one could formally initiate discussion again? --Griseum (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is generally frowned upon to do so too early and if there are no new arguments to make, there is no restriction against initiating a move request again soon after the closure of a request. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm curious about your comment (The 'original title' argument would carry some weight but the article itself is more than 4 times the size it was before the move so the stable article argument is not a strong one.) in the closing of title discussion. My question is... does making contribution and improving to an article help entrench the current title of the article?Slowart (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is that if an article has been greatly increased in size then it has likely been greatly increased in scope as well and the original title may no longer be appropriate. If the arborsculpture --> tree shaping move had been done on a version of the article that was substantially similar to the current article, then the 'original title' suggestion would have carried more weight. However, even if that had been the case (which it is not), do note that there are numerous other reasons outlined in my decision to close the move as I did. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I my conflicted opinion, the improved article is now even more appropriately titled as it was formerly. Yes, I'll look at the other reasons, this is just the one that jumped out at me. Thank You, Slowart (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created with the name arborsculpture and is the most accepted name for this art as found in a preponderance of reliable variable sources. The Home Orchard Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *Grad Thesis *University of California press When you said... “pooktre title as well as the arborsculpture title appear to get almost the same Google hits (not a minority viewpoint here!)” ? no one was suggesting using "Pooktre" as a title. Total Google web hits on arborsculpture or tree shaping won’t tell us much at all due to marketing. Tree shaping on the web is one thing, but [tree shaping on Google books] and [tree shaping on Google scholar] is quite a different search. Both show many "tree shaping" hits but all appear to describe some other practice in fruit tree industry. [Arborsculpture on Google Books] has many hits specific to the topic of this page with some [Google scholar arborsculpture] hits. If being nutral and fair is important then [arborsculpture Google Image] clearly shows that arborsculpture is used to describe the work of many of the various artist, where as "tree shaping" is used to describe the work of Pooktre almost exclusively.[google images tree shaping] You also said.“Finally, there seems to be no question that arborsculpture is a term coined by an individual practitioner of the art.” This fact would not exclude the word from being used in a title. Thanks for looking a bit longer and deeper into this, Slowart (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010



WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 1 - (June 2010)

Project News

WP:IND Newsletter is back! It's been nearly a year since the last edition, but we hope to bring out issues on a more regular basis now. The India Wikiproject was set up to increasing coverage of India-related topics on Wikipedia, and over the past few months the focus has been on improving article quality. A number of the project's featured articles underwent featured article reviews over the past year. Of these, Darjeeling and Flag of India survived the review process, while the rest were demoted. During the same period, Gangtok, Harbhajan Singh, Darjeeling and Mysore were featured on the main page respectively on August 20, September 17, November 6 and December 29, 2009. Meanwhile, articles on topics as diverse as Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), Marwari horse and Iravan were promoted as featured articles, and respectively appeared on the main page on March 25, May 17 and May 28, 2010. Consequently, the number of FA-class articles under the project's scope dropped from 67 in August 2009 to 63 in June 2010. The number of good articles, however, saw a more than 40% increase, from 91 to 130 during the same period, while the number of featured lists saw a 33% increase from 12 to 16.

Due to the recent policy changes regarding unreferenced Biographies of Living People (BLPs), an effort was started in January 2010 to source all unreferenced BLPs coming under Wikiproject India. 1200 such articles were identified initially and more were added to the list later. Due to the sourcing effort, the number of Indian unreferenced BLPs is down to 565 currently. During February-April 2010, There was a large scale disruption of Kerala related articles by a Thrissur based IP vandal. Editing from a dynamic IP BSNL connection, the vandal changed dates of birth, death and ages of a number of Malayalam and Tamil film actors. Later he added a few international biographies to his list. He also marked some living people like Arvind Swamy as dead. A month long range block was imposed on his IP range two times and each time he came back to vandalise dates once the block expired. Currently the range has been blocked for three months till September 11, 2010.

What's New?
Current proposals and discussions
  • A discussion is underway here to reach a consensus regarding the use of Indian number names (lakh, crore etc.) in Wikipedia articles. Please participate and add your comments.
  • A discussion is in progress here in order to determine whether non-Western (including Indian) forms of classical music should be referred to by the nomenclature of art music instead of classical music. Please participate and add your comments.
  • Watchlist the Articles for Deletions page for India related discussions. Opinions from more Indian Wikipedians are required in many of the discussions.

If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of WikiProject India. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 2 – (July 2010)). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Looking forward toward more contributions from you!
Complete To Do List
Complete To Do List
Signed...
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may mention it at WikiProject India Outreach Department

This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 02:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pixable

Dear RegentsPark,

Could I ask you whether you could easily unprotect the following deleted page: Pixable . I haven been contacted by an editor who has created a credible page on the subject with supporting references demonstrating notability. Please see here User:Elaynekosty/pixable. Many thanks for your help. Mootros (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The new version looks substantially different (but this is not a comment on whether it is now notable or not!). --RegentsPark (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for the swift action and sensible comment. Mootros (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Talk:Bollywood

I remember you started reverting a user who kept attaccking me personally on the mentioned talk page and finally you bloxked him for a short period, but now going through it I find that in several previous posts he kept attacking me and insulting me by referring to me as Ms Shahida Kumari, etc. I would want these messages to be removed. Should I do it or you would prefer to do it? Shahid • Talk2me 12:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can remove them yourself. I looked, and they are clear violations of WP:NPA. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them, and Anupam reverted me. Shahid • Talk2me 20:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Ghallooghaaraa

If you have access to the article in some form, you will see that just 4% of it is devoted to the anti-sikh riots of 1984. Overall, it covers the period from 1978 to present. You will find very little of this material in the anti-sikh riots article. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But all the material is covered elsewhere where it is more appropriate (Khalistan movement and Anti-Sikh riots). The entire purpose of the article is to recast the Sikh riots and Operation Bluestar as a holocaust which is not really the case. The events were undeniably horrible but fall short of a holocaust or a genocide. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Hey again

I see you also got involved in the case of Dr Mukesh's sock who creates accounts to insult me and stalks my edit history. There's another one - Group all sixty (talk · contribs). Shahid • Talk2me 22:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another one: Still strong.still (talk · contribs). Shahid • Talk2me 22:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
blocked one. what is this - an epidemic? --RegentsPark (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is. This guy is obsessed. Has created over 20 accounts using my name with some terrible insults. To think that all of it started because I requested him to cite sources. Shahid • Talk2me 22:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All blocked. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. He clearly will create more accounts though, but thanks for the help, it's appreciated. Shahid • Talk2me 22:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Reira

Thnx for the page protection. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 22:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Use of sysop powers in content dispute

RegentsPark, I notice you’ve just used your sysop powers to edit the race and intelligence article through page protection in order to revert one of the edits that led to it being protected. Now, I already know what your explanation for this is going to be—that the “wrong version” of the article was protected—but this is only an acceptable use of sysop powers in the case of simple vandalism. When there is an actual dispute over the content in question, admins should not be using their powers in a manner that is (quite overtly) favoring one side in the dispute over the other.

I’m not involved in this particular content dispute, because I don’t have a strong opinion either way about the content in question. This is only about your use of admin privileges, which I’m bringing up as a relatively uninvolved editor watching the article. I seriously suggest that you reconsider your decision to use your admin powers for this. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've used the buttons incorrectly in this case (I've explained my reasoning on WP:RFPP). However, if you think that my action is particularly egregious, you should bring this up at WP:ANI. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you’re referring to this. Even if the reasoning you provided there is valid, the fact remains that requests like these are supposed to be dealt with by uninvolved administrators, who don’t have any personal stake in the articles in question. During the time that I’ve been involved in these articles (not the race and intelligence article specifically, but articles about related topics such as Snyderman and Rothman (study)), you’ve participated enough in them that I don’t think you can be considered uninvolved here.
Although I think your actions in this case were non neutral, I’m also not invested enough in this particular content dispute to start an AN/I thread about it, especially while there’s an arbitration case active. However, you should be aware of the possibility that one of the editors who’s more involved in this dispute will bring up your action either at AN/I or with the arbitrators. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not usual. Since you appear to be on one side in the content dispute, I will give you some time to undo before taking it to ANI. mikemikev (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the edit warring appears to be over the inclusion of text that is disputed, I believe my action is warranted. And I do not consider myself to be on either side of the dispute. Thanks for checking with me first but please feel free to take this to ANI. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“I do not consider myself to be on either side of the dispute.”
You’re listed as an involved party in the arbitration case for this article, and in the evidence you’ve presented there, you state:
Unless some action is taken to deal with these purpose driven accounts, once the narrowness of their interests is apparent, I fear that we will continue to present a view to the world which indicates that black people are genetically less intelligent than most other people and that it is a generally accepted view that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States was an act of state terrorism. Whether these are true or not, neither view is accepted by their respective academic communities as anything other than minor or fringe, but that is not what wikipedia presents to the world.
In other words, you take the position that the hereditarian hypothesis about race and intelligence is a “fringe” viewpoint, and that something needs to be done about the editors who would like Wikipedia to present it as something other than that. In the recent AN/I threads about these articles, you’ve advocated sanctions for these editors with similar reasoning. There are several editors who agree with you about this, there are also several editors who disagree, and this is one of the most central points of contention on these articles. Since the arbitration case lists you as an involved party in this dispute, you’ve stated there that you believe one side in the dispute to be in the wrong and that something needs to be done about the editors taking that position, and since you’ve advocated sanctions against them for this reason, it’s inaccurate for you to present yourself as either uninvolved or neutral in this dispute. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely your perception. I have no 'stake' in any wikipedia article and have absolutely no opinion on content on Race and Intelligence articles. However, I do note, once again, your unfortunate tendency to divide all editors into camps that are either You're either with us, or against us camps. Wikipedia is not a war and I can assure you that there are many editors who are capable of editing articles dispassionately. Though, of course, even an unbiased editor can be mistaken and therefore, if you continue to believe that my motives are suspect, I urge you to bring the matter up at ANI. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with splitting editors into two groups. All it has to do with is the inaccuracy of your claim to have no opinion about this dispute. You state that you have “absolutely no opinion on content on Race and Intelligence articles”. You also state that in your opinion, the hereditarian hypothesis is not accepted by the academic community “as anything other than minor or fringe, but that is not what wikipedia presents to the world.” Those two statements are incompatible, because the opinion that the hereditarian hypothesis is fringe but that it is not presented that way on Wikipedia—in other words, the opinion that the way it is presented here is something other than how it should be—is an opinion on content in Race and intelligence articles.
Are you able to recognize how these statements are incompatible? This is clear-cut enough that if you aren’t willing or able to acknowledge this, it’s going to be difficult for me to continue assuming good faith about your claim to be uninvolved and neutral in this dispute.
I’ve already said that I don’t intend to raise this issue at AN/I, although I think Mikemikev does. (Wikipedia:Requests_for_review_of_administrative_actions might be a more likely route, actually.) Before this is brought up there, though, it’s important for at least someone to have made an attempt to resolve this matter with you on your userpage. If you aren’t willing to cooperate with that, this will be something to point out in the noticeboard thread. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I request above, please take the matter up at ANI (or any other forum of your choosing). I take my admin responsibilities seriously and scrutiny is not a threat but a useful part of any such system. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Your actions have been reported here [16]. mikemikev (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RESTRICT

I just noticed, looking over the above linked project page, that all restrictions imposed on editors are logged there. Per your closure of this ANI thread, I was wondering if you could add the necessary information to the page.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be appropriate, as my 1RR restriction is per day, not per week. It's a stale issue anyway, and one has to wonder why it's being brought up some five months on. Radiopathy •talk• 01:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong. The inclusion of your restriction at that page has absolutely nothing to do with your restriction's specifics. That page is for logging restrictions on editors. As you are an editor who has a restriction, it is completely appropriate. Lastly, please stop stalking my edits.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits need to be "stalked" as you call it, because you are a disruptive user. Radiopathy •talk• 01:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been warned to stay away from me, instead you insist on stalking my edits and calling me disruptive. There was nothing disruptive about reporting an editor who violated policy, an editor who has now been blocked indefinitely. Last warning, stop stalking me, and get rid of your combative attitude towards me, or I will report you.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I don't see why it shouldn't be logged. Unless there has been a discussion since the one linked to above that changes things? --RegentsPark (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only change that has really happened is RP was caught socking to evade his sanction, and was warned to remain on one account.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's logged truthfully, ie, that my restriction is to one edit per day per article and not one week like it says in the list of types of restrictions, then there will be no problems. And while we're at it, why is it necessary to go over old ground this way? Radiopathy •talk• 02:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:RESTRICT is a log of all current restrictions. As long as the restriction is current, it is better to log it so that it is available to all editors. I'll reread the discussion to see if there is anything specific about the 1RR duration but generally 1RR refers to one revert per day.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said or mentioned anything about it being a 'week', so I see no need to even mention that. My own beef is that it be logged, per policy.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the history here, but can you (Daedalus and Radiopathy) both make an effort to leave each other alone, and not further this dispute? Thanks much; I think that would be in everyone's best interest. -- Pakaran 02:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

I've logged the restriction with the 1 per day specified (though it is not necessary). Beyond that, I think Pakaran has the right idea. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a general point of order. I note that the logging of restrictions is described above as a 'policy'. It is a convention rather than a policy and there is no specific requirement that editing restrictions be logged. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I'd like to request that the restriciton be removed from the log. Radiopathy •talk• 03:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until the community lifts the restriction, the restriction will not be removed from the log; the same goes for any restrictions imposed by the community. That it was inadvertantly missed or forgotten doesn't change the effect of the restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

A small note about the RFC

You closed the AN/I on Pmanderson a bit early. The RFC is likely to get deleted in a couple of hours by Bishonen. As far as I can figure out, he will close it because I, when asking Pmanderson to not do personal attacks, instead of writing something like "I would like you to not attack other editors", used a template that said pretty much the same thing. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Pmanderson#This_RfC_is_still_uncertified. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey - Talk about confusion! Are you sure pmanderson won't waive the 48 hr requirement? Personally, I don't see either the ANI thread or the RfC going in the direction you want them to, but, since I explicitly mentioned the RfC in archiving the ANI thread, I guess I can reopen it if you want. But, my suggestion would be to let it go and to focus on discussing content issues on article talk pages. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if he will waive it or not. This whole long preocess has started because I find it impossible to focus on discussing content issues, as every edit I make will be reverted with "vandalism" comments, and all discussion ends in endless repetition and stonewalling. I'm completely exhausted and desperate from this as nothing I do goes anywhere, and WQA and ANI are simply being ignored. This should obviously not have gone to RFC/U, but now it did. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Reopened. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Super, thanks. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is my first involvement in an RfC I'm unsure of the process. We do have the minimum requirements fulfilled by now, but nothing seems to be happening. Is that normal? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the RfC. A hot RfC would see plenty of comments soon after it is opened but, if people have not a whole lot to say, then nothing much will get said. Like I said above, I doubt if this will work out the way you would like - but you never know until you've tried. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it has lots of comments, and even something looking like an emerging consensus, but it's not certified, even though minimum requirements are fulfilled. As I understand it an admin needs to certify it, right? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that editors who are listed as 'tried to resolve' also certify the RfC. I don't really follow this stuff but let me take a look. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Xeno to take a look [[17]]. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be certified by an admin, just two editors who have "tried and failed to resolve the dispute". Bishonen seems to feel that the certifiers have not "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" - I haven't looked deeply enough into it to endorse or reject that claim. –xenotalk 19:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So does someone have to explicitly move an RfC from 'candidate' to 'certified'? I assume any editor can do that? --RegentsPark (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, it won't move on its own. –xenotalk 19:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, so certified is not the right word. What I'm actually asking was the above; who are allowed to move the RfC from "Candidate" to "Certified" on this list: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/UsersList. I assumed that was an administrator only, but now when I look at the edits, I'm not sure it is. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not administrator only, but given that there has been some dispute over whether the certification is valid it may be best left to an uninvolved user. –xenotalk 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, absolutely, I'm definitely not gonna touch it. I would be pretty angry if anyone involved did that if I was the subject of an RfC. :-) I suspect that means it will linger on candidate for a long time. :-/ But I've come to realize that these processes take a very long time. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) to comment as he is quite familiar with the RFC process and related precedents - much moreso than I am, anyway. –xenotalk 19:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od)(ec)Thanks Xeno. I'm not sure what the practical effects of having the 48 hour rule waived but the RfC 'uncertified' are, but I suspect this is better resolved properly! ncmvocalist is likely the right person to deal with this. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abominable conduct of RegentsPark

RegentsPark, You first say, “I had to wade through long posts by Hindutashravi before I realized that his/her views (on Hindutash) were not worth any attention whatsoever”. This you have stated after unequivocally stating that, “I'm not even going to pretend to understand where Hindutash Pass actually lies”. Then you have the audacity to say on 20 October 2009 at 18:53 when in fact, I had been endeavouring to arrive at a consensus with John Hill , “In the light of previous discussions, you need to get consensus first and only then modify the article. The fact that you've posted something on the talk page is not enough”. You, RegentsPark had stated that I am “consistent in pushing views on the boundaries of Kashmir which are way beyond WP:FRINGE and he seems to have no other purpose on wikipedia” But When I asked you, “From what you are saying, “The “Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir” only on the basis of “a number of disparate pieces of information” "and the Times Atlas is not a reliable source!”, You do not at all respond. You do not have even iota of shame. When 86.96.226.22 in revision 372726931 endeavoured to create a neutral and comprehensive article blending both the rival versions, you could have none of it and nipped it in the bud and did not permit it to be taken forward for constructive modifications! Now you have the audacity to shamelessly say, “Blocked user attempting to evade block”. My stance is clear in the discussion page, and has not been refuted by the shameless administrators. None of you are accountable and you people can make sweeeping unsubstantiated allegations against me and do what you please with impunity. Why don’t you “protect” your version of Hindutash just like you have done to the Aksai Chin article? It will save a lot of my time and energy. And, It will also confirm that wikipedia is not "a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site". Hindutashravi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.67.109 (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hindutashravi. You first need to get your block removed - then you can edit articles on this site. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi RegentsPark,Thanks for informing me that I need to get my block removed! For your information, I would like to inform you that my communication to Jimmy Wales and ArbCom pertaining to getting my block removed and further for punitive action against the dishonest administrators who have blocked me is still pending and I am awaiting a response from them. Perhaps You can do some thing about that! Thanks!!
I will reproduce the latest communication sent to Jimmy Wales dated 9 June 2010 20:48 titled "Conduct of Toddst1" hereunder:
Conduct of Toddst1
In my previous correspondence with Jimmy Wales and Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), notably Roger Davies who has been replying purportedly on behalf of ArbCom, Roger Davies has been pretending that my correspondence has been pertaining to issues pertaining content dispute when it has definitely been regarding conduct , where as Jimmy Wales has evading the profound and pertinent issues pertaining to Conduct that I had raised and harping on content issues when I had specifically contacted him only on the issue of conduct and he apropos the issue of content, he has ignored my suggestion that since the issue of content dispute pertains to law, the issue may be placed before a legal panel and he does not reply. There is a conspiracy of silence!
But now coming to conduct of Toddst1, He has stated, "You have not been allegedly blocked, you have in fact, been blocked. Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address your behaviour. You've had enough appeals here and you have now lost your ability to edit this page”. He is indulging in misrepresentation and lies. I am definitely blocked. It is the reasons given for the block that is alleged. He is lying when he says that in my messages contesting the block, I have not addressed my behaviour. I had explicitly inter alia stated that “I was in the midst of my endeavour for consensus when Abecedare blocked me”. “I as a Lawyer myself, was planning to get in touch with Wikipedian lawyers like NJA for their third opinions but before I could do that *I have been blocked by Abecedare and these constant blocks are hindering my endeavour for consensus”. “I have already made it clear that I was willing to not insist that the article should state that the pass is in Kashmir provided Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark also do not insist in stating that the pass was allegedly in “Xinjiang region of the People’s Republic of China”.
Further he says “You've had enough appeals here” . My earlier message was allegedly declined not on merits because my earlier “request” was allegedly “far too verbose”. Besides, even in the previous 1 month block dated 27 July 2009 , I had asked Toddst1 to “ Please pin point the exact nature of my disruption, and I will do what is necessary on my part to take remedial measures” and “I will also attempt to look for some mediation or third opinions first as suggested by User:Lifebaka” . But he did not, and he willfully ignored and evaded the issue and now he again states, that “Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address your behaviour”. How can such a despicable perverted behaviour be countenanced? I demand that you take action against him.
If FisherQueen says, “ You were offered a fairly reasonable condition for your return” or “getting consensus before making changes is actually standard practice in controversial articles”, then the “fairly reasonable condition” should be applicable to both (all) the parties and “getting consensus before making changes is actually standard practice in controversial articles” should also be applicable to both the parties. What does she mean when she says, “You've given a lot more information that I needed in this request”, or “I didn't read most of that”? She is lying. She has not just read all that I had stated and she has also perfectly understood what I had stated. Just because she very well knows that what ever I had stated therein is perfectly true and she cannot refute it, she is making such statements. I cannot give her information in a platter which is tailor made to suit her whims and fancies! I give information which is relevant to me pertaining to the true reasons for my block and if she is not interested, then she should just not interfere and let some honest administrator to deal with my contest.
Toddst1 has not just removed my ability to contest the block for false reasons. He has also removed my ability to edit my own discussion page. This show how much prejudiced and mala fide his action is. I will pin point the reason why he removed even my right to edit my own page. It is because of the new subsection “Basis” that I created which angered and irritated him!
I demand that I be given a chance to contest the block in the manner Ottava Rima was given. I am not necessarily stating that he, i.e. Ottava Rima was given a fair chance. But he was the only one to have the guts to challenge RegentsPark, and all of us know what happened to him! If you are going to not give me a chance to disprove the statements of RegentsPark and his colleagues, rather than making unilateral and arbitrary unsubstantiated prejudged statements like, “However, the evidence you have provided tends to confirm that you edited outside policy; were reasonably blocked for it; and rejected a good faith offer of conditional unblocking. I have little more to add, I'm afraid”, I will have to do what is necessary to expose you. Your article on ArbCom states that, “A statistical study published in the Emory Law Journal indicated that the Committee has generally adhered to the principles of ignoring the content of user disputes and focusing on user conduct.”
Why don’t you just confess that Wikipedia has a policy to support the Chinese and has a bias in favour of the Chinese on the issue of Chinese territorial claims in India and for that reason, I just had to be necessarily removed and the allegations of disruption are just a pretext! Your appointing the first ever Indian Board member is not at all going to change all that. The issue is not just about the Hindutash pass in Kashmir. It is also for example about my contribution in inter alia the Aksai Chin article where in I had added immense information which are neither my original research nor my point of view but are extracts or quotes from acclaimed research books and supported by verifiability which are not being retained by the coterie who want the article to be in their preferred version. The POV version of the article refers to Arunachal Pradesh which, but for the fact that Arunachal Pradesh like Aksai Chin are both parts of India, has nothing to do with Aksai Chin in order to serve the ulterior purpose of the racket involved. Hindutashravi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.63.102 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Well, good luck. Meanwhile, do note that posting from an IP is block evasion, which is frowned upon. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Kashmir War

Because the source quoted so ranks it; it is one of the few cases (because they comment on it specifically), where it is possible to be sure that they count both states as democracies. Both India and Pakistan were Dominions then, and had unwritten Consitutions after the British manner (as did Canada until the 1970s), but the legislatures on both sides were elected, before Independence, in the knowledge that they would be national legislatures and Constituent Assemblies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to copy this comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buckup of Article

Can I take buckup of these articles World Organization for Scientific Cooperation and Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes. Thanks.--Earth Defender (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to user space. You should make offline backups of these pages from there. User:Earth Defender/World Organization for Scientific Cooperation and User:Earth Defender/Global_Network_for_the_Forecasting_of_Earthquakes. --RegentsPark (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for realising that there are situations where nothing is going to happen unless somebody does something. --FormerIP (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

For reading Pmandersons source on the Kashmir war. Of the sources he uses which are available online he usually gets them wrong them, but I haven't had any chance to check out the other sources. I should probably give you a barn star or something, but I don't really know which one. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice?

Hi RegentsPark. I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that this is a great idea. First, I think that there are nuances that are not easily covered. For example, while point 1 is generally correct, there are situations where the POV of the author is important, especially where it is self-declared or is generally recognized by his/her peers. For example, when Richard Dawkins writes on religion, it makes little sense to ignore his views on religion. I agree that it is not for us to use Dawkins' known POV to interpret a piece that he has written but rather to, legitimately I think, use the commentary of others that points out Dawkins' POV and uses that POV to comment on the writing. However, the line between content POV and writer POV is fuzzy by definition and I don't think it is something that can be easily clarified. Second, I personally (and this is a wikipedia POV!) like the fact the way WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS go together. WP:NPOV explains that neutrality is a desired objective of the encyclopedia. WP:CONSENSUS is the way we decide what neutrality is. All this is ably supported by WP:FRINGE and WP:RS which are guidelines rather than policy prescriptions. These are my immediate thoughts but I'll follow any discussion on this and figure things out as I go along. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that "the line between content POV and writer POV is fuzzy by definition and I don't think it is something that can be easily clarified." I guess my point was that in these cases the author usually identifies his or her POV clearly in the text itself (Dawkins surely does). And if the author does not identify his or her POV in the text, I believe it is pretty easy, usually, to find a secondary source that identifies the viewpoint. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Ken Buck

I'm sorry to say that I (respectfully) disagree with your apparent assumption that this individual now meets any of the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN and, to the best of my knowledge, will not do so until he actually wins the election or attains considerably more in the way of non-local media coverage than is present. My belief is that we have a responsibility to ensure that articles about political candidates are held to this standard because otherwise we could inadvertently be contributing to electioneering; frankly, I have seen many, many pages where these sorts of assertions of notability are being made by obviously partisan political workers in the hope that Wikipedia's imprimatur will be lent to their candidate. In this case, the article in question actually failed at AfD about 60 days ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Buck, which leads me to suggest (again respectfully) that you may have erred in restoring this page without asking that it be taken through deletion review. May I know your thoughts? Accounting4Taste:talk 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the notability of the individual has changed with the end of the primary which means that, at the least, it should go through AfD again. IMO, that is. I guess I should have pinged you before unprotecting but didn't think that this would be controversial. Apologies. Since I should have asked you, I will not take it as a personal affront if you override my unprotection. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wandered over here after working to semi-recreate the article so people looking for this new nominee wouldn't wonder what was wrong with Wikipedia. jftr, we do have an Infobox 'congressional candidates' for notable candidates - and certainly nominees for major parties - for important offices when the person is indeed 'in contention' (as opposed to being a no-hoper according to the various polls and rankings available for these elections). If I had known the article was in an Afd earlier, I would have posted that information there at the time. So, I'm letting you know this now in hopes of preventing future mistakes of this sort. As I posted in the article's Talk page just now, I don't know who this guy is and am only interested in helping those interested in working on the article get off to a good start. Flatterworld (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think WP:POLITICIAN point #3 leaves notability to consensus. Prior to the primary, he was not notable (as a politician). Post the primary, it depends on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, which, assuming it is a question, is better left to AfD. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate being pointed to the link for the "Infobox 'congressional candidates'", or whatever standard it's being suggested is applicable here other than WP:POLITICIAN; I'm interested also in precisely what you (User:Flatterworld) are suggesting by "mistakes of this sort". I'm not suggesting that this article should go through AfD again -- I think there is little point in that, since to me the article as it stands is quite eligible to be speedied as a recreation of a failed AfD (there are many links but only one useful reference, and it is a local one), so I think it quite likely that a second AfD would fail for the same reasons as the first. In fact, I think the article should go to deletion review and it will be less time-consuming for all concerned if it's in place for people to read. I'm not going to take the unilateral action of speedying it because I gather that there is some sort of policy of which I'm not aware governing this situation, and I'd like to read it before proceeding. Incidentally, I wanted to note that the previous AfD echoed my point above about electioneering, which is why I think careful and thoughtful examination of both policy and facts is entirely in order. If Mr. Buck is indeed a "notable candidate", and that definition meets a Wikipedia policy requirement, there will certainly be plenty of arm's-length third-party non-local experts who corroborate that. BTW, if this should more properly be at the talk page of Ken Buck, for wider consideration, that's fine with me; I don't know User:RegentsPark's level of interest here. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in the article beyond handling the request at RFPP. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll thank you for your involvement and your courtesy and look for future discussions on the relevant talk page. Much obliged. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-17/Operation Blue Star

I'm closing the case as stale, after a week of inactivity; should this dispute flare up again, feel free to reopen without prejudice. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in India

Can you take a look and see if protection is necessary? I was involved in a similar issue on the article a while back (with a sock drawer), so I can't take any action. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is necessary at this point - I'll watch it. Back from your travels I see!--RegentsPark (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly back, just taking a break :) —SpacemanSpiff 19:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

just a note

… to thank you for your note, and for your honest good-faith participation on a difficult talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult is an understatement :) But, and this is why I love wikipedia, these 'difficult' articles are interesting learning experiences. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've explored many topics through editing WP that I never would've ventured into otherwise. And then there are the learning experiences that occur outside the article content spaces — those are also fascinating. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names

I don't mean to flatter, but I have you down as someone smart enough to see that there would be a point in having a definitive external list to de-POV the issue RegentsPark. I suspect that avoiding a load of nonsensical chit-chat, whilst understandable, isn't particularly noble as a motive for doing nothing. :-) In all seriousness though, I view the UN list as being like SI units or something - the UN are the people who approve nation-states and agree to their names, boundaries, etc. Wikipedia should be as bound by that as by the SI standards. It really is unflattering to have UN-recognised country name exceptions governed by who has the most votes (Georgia) or Arbcom people not being able to stand any more rows for a while (Ireland). 15:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like the common names policy. It allows us to examine everything on a case by case basis and, in most cases, we seem to have a good solution. For example, Georgia is better off as a disambiguation page than as the country article (IMO). I seriously doubt that, moving to a UN mandated list, is going to solve anything because there are too many exceptions. Sorry! --RegentsPark (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Telugu language

Can you protect for a few days? Minor content dispute between two IPs that's basically made this a revert garden. I've edited the article before in a similar content area, so I can't take any action. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, hopefully this will settle the issue. BTW, did you see the message on my talk page, the doc is waiting for you to nominate him at RFA? cheers —SpacemanSpiff 15:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does he know that as an admin he'll only block, protect and pontificate and no longer edit! Still, if he's ready, willing, and able, then I could write something up. Much prefer a co-nom though since I'm really and truly ensnared by work and family till December.--RegentsPark (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha. No, it was really just a joke (at least that's what I thought), but our edit summaries requested you to respond. Anyways, I've got to head out for a while, can you check out my post at WT:INB on the holocaust? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of .... --RegentsPark (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

'Indian freedom struggle'/1857/template

The relevant discussion has been moved to Template_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars#.27Indian_freedom_struggle.27 Zuggernaut (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll watchlist that page. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help re speedy reason

I was wondering if you might look at a deleted page history and help me figure something out. In doing hangon patrolling yesterday morning I came across a A7 speedy deletion nomination on Kafani, a musician, and declined it because I confirmed that the article subject had a charted single at Billboard, meeting WP:BAND #2. Since a declined speedy cannot ordinarily be reasserted, I was surprised to see that Esanchez7587 subsequently deleted it under A7. Not being a sysop, I can't look back to see what happened, so I asked Eschanez, but he's apparently choosing not to reply. I'm not asking for undeletion or deletion review or challenging his position, I just don't understand what happened and would like to know if and, if so, how I messed up in declining the speedy. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the single wasn't considered enough at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kafani) where it was also felt that there were no albums. Unless there is additional evidence of notability, the old AfD applies (is there?). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD ended in August, 2007, but the single didn't hit the charts until October, 2007. Unless Billboard's "Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles" doesn't qualify as a "national music chart," then WP:BAND #2 would seem to be satisfied, as I noted in my edit summary when I denied the speedy. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On further research: And that could be the answer. Billboard's web site says:

Most of the charts in Billboard are either pure sales or radio charts. The only exceptions in which we mingle sales and radio data are two of our signature charts: the Billboard Hot 100 and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs (as well as two charts based on the same data feeds as the Hot 100: the Hot 100's Bubbling Under chart, which ranks the top 25 titles that have not yet reached the Hot 100, and Heatseekers Songs, which reflects the most popular songs by new or developing acts, defined as those who have never appeared as a lead artist in the top 50 of the Hot 100, or the top 50 of Hot 100 Airplay prior to Dec. 5, 1998).

Doesn't address Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart, but the logic is pretty much the same, I suspect. I think that's enough answer to satisfy me, however. Thanks and sorry to have bothered you. TM
Not a bother. I learn something new every time! I have zero understanding about the way the music world works, now I have zero + delta. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx/The Bronx

Hello, you participated in a discussion last spring that resulted in renaming The Bronx as Bronx. There is now a proposal to open a new Request for Comments on restoring the original name. If you have comments about the timing of such a proposal, please make them soon at Talk:Bronx#Query: when do we consider this? because, unless a there's a consensus against such a Request for Comments, it will begin early this week. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Talk:Telugu_language.
Message added 16:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please remove the protection. or reduce the protection time to one day Ranjithsutari (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid77 and ANI

Assuming you've read through all the discussions at ANI and the editors talkpage before you made your decision; And like you pointed out in your wrap-up comment I too hope they will live up to their latest response. My experience with this editor tells me different but AGF should never be dismissed, put aside or even forgotten. I want to express my respect for you finally touching and deciding on a difficult and contentious matter. Best, TMCk (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When I saw the 'you have new messages', I was ready to run for cover :) --RegentsPark (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I do the latter usually myself XD
BTW, Now that the editor is not facing an extended topic ban there is still the question if they should be unblocked or not. Maybe you want to have a private talk with the blocking admin if you feel the block should be lifted or altered.TMCk (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The block was not only for the ban vio. TMCk (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RegentsPark.

I think you should a least give an apportunity for discussion of what Wikid77 has proposed. What he seems to be proposing is that, since he is right and the problem is entirely with the conduct of admins and WP policy, he will campaign to ensure that blameless editors such as himself don't fall victim to this kind of thing in the future and he will write an essay about how to deal with unreasonable and agreesive administrators. Admittedly, he has offered to only launching one discussion at a time but, overall, I find it hard to credit that you have read his bulleted list and reached the conclusion that it adds up to anything.

You say in your summary that a topic ban does not have wide community support, but AFAICT all administrators and uninvolved editors who commented (up until you) supported a topic ban. The only support Wikid77 seems to have got is from within the cluster of SPAs discussed in another ANI thread.

You also say the ban would be excessive because it is over a "one day confusion (or not)" (just for the sake of saying so, it was two days). Which neatly misses the point. It is clear that Wikid77 breached his ban deliberately for some purpose, since he acknowledged the length of the ban a couple of days before breaching it and ignored my querying of him doing so. I don't think it is appropriate to spell out why I think he did this, but I also don't think it is necessary. --FormerIP (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban is a serious matter and, while I agree that the editors who commented on the thread were generally in favor of one, it would be far better to see a widespread consensus in favor of such a ban. That is not what I saw, which indicates (to me) that the community in general likely feels that he hasn't reached that point yet. Clearly if he doesn't fix his editing patterns he'll be up for a topic ban or worse soon so my suggestion is to just let it go. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(after e/c) I do agree with FormerIP but think that ones unblocked, the editor in question will either refrain from such mentioned activity or not, in which case a widely construed topic ban + block should and will be applied. This is one more (and the last) chance given to them and by not obeying their own terms could be easily indef blocked with little chance appealing it.TMCk (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(ec)Okay, so if you think that a topic ban can't come from a relatively narrow discussion on ANI (I have no idea if you are correct on this or not), then surely it is not the case that the matter is resolved, just that the wrong remedy has been discussed or the wrong forum used (?). I mean to be polite, and this is nothing personal, but marking the discussion resolved with a conclusion so clearly contrary to the consensus in the thread may look like it oversteps the mark. And it is frustrating because, against my expectation, it gives a disruptive editor exactly the outcome they were looking for - admins trying to do the best for the article are undermined.
Aside from which, the editor has basically offered to spread themselves all over wikipedia sniping at the conduct of admins involved in this case - and you're letting him off the hook on the understanding that he follows through on this promise. Can you at least undo that part? --FormerIP (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FormerIP makes some good arguments that I didn't bring up (b/c maybe I'm to nice deep in my heart?). One qualified question I do have for RegentsPark: You indeed marked it solved while the editor is still blocked for this and other violation so now I'm wondering if you indeed read through the whole case before making your judgment since you released "the defendant" while keeping him (unknowingly?) in "jail". Could you please provide some more defined explanation for dismissing an extension of his topic ban while not addressing his block? Thanks in advance, best, TMCk (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying I am not nice deep in my heart?
Only joking. I generally believe in redemption, but I think that, if there is one thing to learn from the MoMK saga, it is that spending a year giving incurably disruptive editors the benefit of the doubt is not actually "nice", it is actually unkind to the rest of the community. There are plenty of other things to do on the internet (in this case, elsewhere in WP would suffice) and it is not actually a cruel and unusual punishment to protect an article from incessant drama. Have you noticed how civility and a spirit of compromise starts to blossom in the wake of blocks like this? But it never gets to take root, because there's always someone coming to the end of their block...--FormerIP (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You sure are nice deep in your heart since I have to AGF. I'm too just kidding of course. And yes, I'm not blind and have observed the same (like anyone watching the page). I'm (unfortunately?) not with stupid.TMCk (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FormerIP — the only opposition to the indefinite topic ban proposal has been from a handful of SPAs (who may or may not be clones of one another — that has been debated in a previous ANI thread, but the issue has gone stale) who, far from constructing a response based on reasoned argument, policies, and guidelines, have opted for whining and protest (e.g. this edit) instead. Their contributions at ANI have been tagged accordingly. The fact remains that Wikid77 broke the terms of an earlier topic ban — not just casually, but with a series of talk page edits demanding sweeping changes that would have radically altered the nature of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article — despite acknowledging a later date for his return in a previous edit.
Now his "alternative proposal" effectively blames all others editors except himself for this thinly-concealed dishonesty. For example, take his idea to push for consensus to prohibit specifying block and ban durations in months, on the grounds that a set number of days would be less ambiguous. I'd be interested to hear of any previous cases where a blocked/banned user encountered such extraordinary difficulty in understanding that three months from 11th June would generally be considered 11th September and not the 9th (discounting all the smokescreening nonsense about a "Federal Calendar"). It is also ironic how he refers to the general editing situation at the topic talk page as a "hornets nest", having apparently forgotten that his own drastic edits contributed to that same situation. The whole comment shouts out WP:IDHT and WP:NOTTHEM.
Furthermore, edits such as this (retreading the same old alleged BLP concerns regarding the Kercher article once again) do not inspire me with a great deal of confidence as to his intentions. From the same edit: "I also thank those who issued negative remarks because it gives me an idea of how much hostility is still out there, even though I have been "gone" for 3 months from MoMK. Typically, happy people don't dwell on negatives, so it seems Talk:MoMK has retained a hostile aura, even with me gone." He may have apologised about his early return (but note the caveats, which distance him from the "hostility" at the topic), but at no point in his alternative proposal does he appear to refute MLauba's other concerns, which include WP:GAME. On the contrary, his intentions to campaign for fresh consensus on issues relating to his conduct seem implicitly charged with a wish to game the system further.
RegentsPark, please be assured that I intend no personal disrespect or abuse with this response, and I hope that none is assumed. I have no desire to cast unsubstantiated aspersions at Wikipedia. It is just that the conclusion to the ANI thread appears to be so at odds with the majority opinion (that is, barring SPA contributions in favour, and including input from other administrators). As FormerIP has suggested, it seems that with this result, other users are playing right into Wikid's hands. SuperMarioMan 20:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ RegentsPark. may I suggest that you reevaluate your decision after reading closely through the entire thread (incl. links provided) and do so the same at Wikid77's talkpage, acknowledge that will do so here and then either confirm your first evaluation of the situation or update it if needed? As I earlier, you didn't mentioned or take in account that the editor is still blocked which makes clear that this is not resolved as of the time I'm posting. I'll take the freedom to update the ANI thread by removing the "resolved" tag while pointing to your talkpage for further information regarding this. Best, TMCk (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with this. I think it premature to impose a topic ban and believe that you should seek much wider consensus (i.e., community wide consensus) for such a topic ban. Merely writing up a topic ban statement, getting a few supports, should not be an acceptable way to do this. I am aware of the block and have no comment on it and don't see why the topic ban thread (which is what the ANI complaint is primarily about) cannot be dealt with independently of the block. Anyway, if you feel that the discussion should continue, then que sera sera. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y sera continualmente hasta que una buena solution (es) presentado.... :) My guess.TMCk (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oui :) --RegentsPark (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Si, oui. I tengo mas preparado en Ingles ;) TMCk (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai un pingouin dans mon porte-documents. Souhaitez-vous le voir? --FormerIP (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offense meant and I asked the following before: Did you read through the whole thread, checking the links provided and the same at Wikid77's talkpage? I know it's a lot to ask for an uninvolved admin that is therefore (at least usually) not familiar with the editor and their history. I personally think in general that uninvolved editors like you should either take the time to get to the bottom of an issue or just leave it alone. Not saying you didn't, just saying that it happened before that admins closed a ANI thread w/o reading it at all (wp:TLDR) and later after more drama and disruption happened editors where "shot down" with the original admins who involved themselves as neutral keeping their mouth shut, like it would be a shame to act on something they might have made a mistake before. Admins are as human as editors without the tools and have any right to make mistakes (or just simply overseeing something) like anybody else here.TMCk (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that a topic ban, from a pragmatic point-of-view, would be a helpful thing. We have a problematic article and it is clear (IMO) from recent events that it could (maybe) be healed if the most disruptive editors were excluded from it. However, if a threshold has not been met or a topic ban is not a normal outcome from this type of discussion (btw, what would constitute "community wide"?), then someone ought to argue that in the context of the discussion. It strikes me that all admin comments (except yours) have been in favour of a ban. --FormerIP (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few admins should not a topic ban make. Topic bans should be a community wide consensus thing, not an admin only decision. Anyway, like I said, I don't agree with keeping this open but you have the right to continue discussing it, so be it. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen topic bans enacted based on discussion both at WP:AN and WP:ANI. Wikid's three-month restriction resulted from an ANI discussion, and none of the contributors (both users and administrators) queried the choice of venue/procedure. SuperMarioMan 22:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was wider. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How wide do you think it needs to be? Obviously no-one wants a topic ban on a poor basis. --FormerIP (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that discussion was wider, even so not by much and still resulted in a 3 month topic ban. I wish you would've commented as an uninvolved admin instead of making a quick decision. But that's just my opinion.TMCk (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is fairly obvious that we differ on this. As far as I'm concerned, the topic ban is premature. You people, who are all clearly involved in the murder of meredith kercher (the article, I mean) feel otherwise. The ANI thingy is still unresolved. I'm not sure what point you all see in continuing this discussion here but feel free to keep commenting. :) --RegentsPark (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe tomorow. As of being involved, of course I can't say no with a straight face but I can say with a very staight face that I only propose remedies against editors whyo showed no improvement at all after much time. Otherwise I give them a slack as they are not worth the effort and don't really are a big burden to WP. Wikid77 (and for another example from the same topic, PhanuelB) didn't met that threshold for a long time. Anyhow, let's see what happens. Just don't say nobody told you so if things running badly again :) . Best, TMCk (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth hearing from people who differ from you, though. What do you think the width requirement is here? --FormerIP (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current discussion actually appears to be "wider" than the last: I count 19 separate contributing users (compared to 14, I think, previously), with 10 votes in favour of an indefinite topic ban (among them all 5 contributing administrators), 6 votes against (including Wikid77; all objections are unsubstantiated by diffs, and 4 are from SPAs), with 3 contributors yet to offer their opinion. How much more discussion should there be? SuperMarioMan 00:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having counted, there are 19 votes on that discussion - 10 supports of a topic ban and 6 against - except that the 6 against include Wikid77 himself and 4 SPA accounts, all of which are new, all of which edit exclusively on the Meredith Kercher article, and all of which support Wikid77's POV there. I can't help feeling our processes are going awry here. My concern - which is why I suggested the topic ban in the first place - is that since Wikid77 can't help being disruptive on the MoMK article, he'll end up getting himself blocked again in the future, which doesn't help the other areas of the encyclopedia that he edits (well) in. He has a stated POV on the subject and simply doesn't seem to be able to avoid issues on the talkpage. I hope the rejection of a topic ban doesn't rebound on him, and us. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Missing the point

To be clear, Wikid77 wasn't blocked because of breaking his topic ban two days early, he was blocked because by doing so, he immediately resumed the kind of disruptive editing that led to his three months ban, and coincidentally, is at the root of his entire block history. Beyond the immediate disruption on the articles around the Knox case, he has also been an active voice in coaching two (or three) other users, PhanuelB (talk · contribs), PilgrimRose (talk · contribs) and Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs) (those last two might be one and the same) into escalating the dispute - a review of Wikid77's interventions on PhanuelB's talk page while he was under a topic ban should make clear what this is about.


In all of this, Wikid77 has never acknowledged a sliver of responsibility. He could have, over more than a year, been a voice of reason and explained all the partisans who popped up at the article that the best way to get heard and to learn how Wikipedia works is to tune down the rethoric and listen. He never did, on the contrary, he has, without fail, done everything to inflame. Wikid77 does good work on other parts of the encyclopedia, but the Knox affair is toxic to him just as much as his actions are toxic on it. A topic ban is a way to avoid having to remove him from the project for a long term. Letting him carry on will only lead to a long term block or a full community ban, something that could still be averted by taking the right action now. MLauba (Talk) 08:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Wow! I go away for a couple of days to take care of RL stuff and, lo behold, WP:ANI has moved to my talk page. I hope that was a policy move backed by consensus (but, on the plus side, I can take ANI out of my watch list). --RegentsPark (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010


Thanks

Hi Regent. I read your edit summary too :) As insane as my poetry was. Wanted to leave a personal note commenting that it was very sweet of you to withdraw your oppose in my RfA. It mattered a ton to me. Thanks again and sincere regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. With a sense of humor like that, you can't go wrong! --RegentsPark (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping

Hi Regents Park, I feel your comment has left out the fact that others have made suggestions, that are also are not getting sufficient traction. Your comment gives the impression colincbn is the only one trying to come to an agreement. I understand this probably wasn't your intention, this is just how it comes across to me. Thanks. Blackash have a chat 04:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said 'even the alternative names suggested by colincbn' which sort of implies that there are others as well. But no worries. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

India

Brilliant! :) --King Zebu (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Email

Just a quick note that I've sent you email relating to this. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to co-nom, the initial nomination page is up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TransporterMan. Many thanks, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the co-nom, but I saw references to diffs in your edit summary: You add or me add? What diffs? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a few diffs in support of my statements. Give me about 30 minutes or so, and I'll be done. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave a note here when you're finished and I'll watch for it. Thanks, and thanks again. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I usually like to spend more time on noms but RL is calling so let me know if you disagree with anything I've said or think I should change something. Good luck! --RegentsPark (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you might want to delete Quarl's support and then transclude it (and let Quarl know). I think there should be no !votes before transclusion (but I could be wrong). --RegentsPark (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so very, very much, all looks good to me. I'll look at the Quarl issue before I transclude. Thank you for putting your RL on hold for awhile to do this. I certainly know how hard that can be. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I dragged you into this, but I've withdrawn my nomination. Thank you again for your support, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't drag me into anything. If anything, your comportment during the RfA (a difficult one mainly because the very first !vote was an oppose -which I consider a rather 'poor-form' act considering you're an editor in good standing) only strengthens my conviction that you'll make a good admin.--RegentsPark (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of category

I have proposed here to rename Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Hindutva terrorism, as to be more accurate to the meaning that the terrorism is politically and nationally motivated and not religiously motivated. Please join the discussion. SilverserenC 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Email,

You have a new one.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got your email. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to examine this - hopefully the other admin will take care of it. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, RegentsPark and TransporterMan

Should we develop a stand–up routine? I create messes and you come in to clean them up? Or is it the other way around? Best regards, and with all my respect, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whadya mean Hardy and Costello. The name is Park, Regents Park.

CarTick

Re: this - the warning was a result of a request at RFPP for full-protection of Nair. Under the circumstances I felt a warning to both editors was preferable to full-protection. I did note at RFPP that neither editor seemed to have gone beyond two reverts. TFOWR 16:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan
Last: 05/22/2010
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

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

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Content discussion at 3O

Regents, (I'm tempted to call you "Reggie," but then you'd be tempted to call me "Trannie," and I wouldn't like that one little bit ... ) It appears that the content vs. all disputes discussion at 3O is going to stall out with no consensus. Despite the way that I phrased the proposal, I see that as leaving the content restriction in place but I don't want to assert that at the 3O talk page until I make sure that you and I are not going to disagree on that being the result. I'm not saying that a non-consensus result would necessarily result in the content restriction being now firmly established by consensus, but only that it would move us back to the status quo before the discussion arose. Is that how you would see it if there's a no-consensus result? Watching this space, regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I don't really understand why you want to restrict it to content only. Leaving aside arguments of a status quo nature, isn't it better to be able to, if necessary, address all kinds of disputes between two parties? --RegentsPark (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Making it open to behavioral disputes seems redundant to me because it duplicates what's available at WP:WQA and isn't the best thing for WP as a whole because editors seeking help in disputes are more likely to get a quality opinion at the venue most focused on their type of dispute. To expand on that, WQA is virtually identical to 3O except for its focus (behavior), the manner in which disputes are discussed (at the WQA page, rather than at the site of the dispute), and the fact that they don't have a two-editor rule. Though CordeliaNaismith in the debate at 3O–talk suggested that a "3O request is much friendlier than noticeboarding someone" the fact is that WQA simply isn't WP:ANI. Its guidelines say, in so many words, that it's not a place to seek sanctions against someone, but is, just like 3O, a place to get a neutral opinion about someone's conduct. I see the content restriction as merely a way to nudge folks to the place best suited for their dispute, where the regular opinion–givers are more versed in the particular kind of dispute in question. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC) PS: So what's your take on what happens if we stall with no consensus? TM[reply]
WQA is really for civility issues and often leads to a 'slap on the wrist' kind of action. 3O, on the other hand, is a much friendlier way to resolve things (and, consequently, retain editors). However, WQA aside, there are many disputes that are neither content related nor civility related that are excluded by a 'content-only' policy. The case that started this whole thing is a good example of something that is neither a content issue nor a civility issue. If we put a content only restriction on cases like that, they're likely to escalate to a venue such as ANI where polite tact is not generally the norm. Your 3O was well constructed, well received and seemed to have settled the issue quickly and with a minimum of fuss and we should be encouraging the posting of these sort of disputes on 3O. About the discussion on WT:3O, I'd just leave it alone if I were you. Someone will hopefully come along and close it, or it might die out, or it might come back to life. No hurry.--RegentsPark (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my most recent proposal at the 3O talk page. Maybe this can be a middle–ground compromise. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. Except that disputes that involve more than two editors should also be excludable. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Marks

Thanks for protecting the article--I just noticed that most edits in the last year, whether coming from a similar IP range or from named accounts, have been the same. Same person appears to have targeted Joe Sestak. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected that as well (till after the election). --RegentsPark (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Thanks

Thanks for the support. I would not like you to be put in a situation where your support for me could be misunderstood and "Fighting battles on wikipedia is far from easy when you're up against obdurate editors and POV pushers and PBS does a reasonably fine job in dealing with these editors, IMO." could be taken to mean that you think that SV is an obdurate editor. I know you did not mean it, but that is because I know what sort of editor you are referring to and it is not editors like SV or Tony1. I would suggest that you clarify this with a personal note to her explaining that your words could be misunderstood by less charitable people than her and that you meant, for example the British India issue with editors like User:Xn4. -- PBS (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. Thanks for pointing that out.--RegentsPark (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of Pmanderson

I am a little bit surprised by this unblock. The editor's unblock request clearly indicates that he doesn't even understand why he was blocked (he says he was blocked for using the word "misconduct", when he was actually blocked for incivility for for this edit in which he refactors another user's comments (see the bottom of the diff; on top of that, he links to this ANI thread as evidence that user "generally disapprove of" my actions, even though that thread is about his actions and only one user there says anything about mine), so I don't see what makes you think the "user sees the error of his ways". The admin who declined the unblock request also indicated that the user clearly doesn't understand the reason for the block; would you care to explain why you unblocked anyway? Your unblock rationale seems to suggest that you are excusing Pmanderson's refactoring of talkpage comments because I did the same thing to him beforehand, even though he never provided any diffs regarding that (and I just looked through a month's worth of my diffs and found nothing; the only thing coming close was this, which was on someone else's comment and was only formatting).

Also note the blocking admin's message here: "I would like to urge other admins NOT to lessen the block duration this time; I don't see any sign that he "got the message" from any of the prior actions, RFC, warnings, etc. We need to have a sanction that sticks and has effective long term behavior change here."

Anyway, I'm sorry to be a bother, but you were expecting flak on this anyway. Could you please explain your reasons for unblocking a little more clearly? rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It appears to me that the editor was suitably aware of the reasons for his block. Once that is established, continuing the block is merely punitive, which is not a good idea in general and a bad idea when dealing with a productive editor. About the unblock request being declined by another admin, note that I had asked a question of the blocked editor with an edit summary indicating that I was reviewing the request. I see no reason why I should take the trouble to review a request and then not follow through with my review. Hope this answers your questions. Regards.--RegentsPark (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the basic facts (whether or not the editor understands the reason for his block), so there's not much that can be done beyond that. Anyway, what's done is done now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly believe he does. Of course, only time will tell if the message was internalized. Best. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So is he on probation or something? Is accusing an editor of being opposed to policy on an article talk page indicative of the message being internalized? [18] I've had conflicts with this editor in the past, but I've had many disagreements with countless other editors too (including you recently, as you know). But usually these discussion remain civil and amicable, focussed reasonably objectively on the content of the disagreement, rather than on the persons involved.

With this editor the tone seems to quickly get personal and "attackish", as I feel it has again in the discussion I just cited above.

I share your optimism about this editor, because my opinion is that he has valuable contributions and opinions to make and share, and does, but he still has trouble expressing disagreement by focusing on content without crossing the line into making derisive comments about those he disagrees with. Not sure it's worth filing an ANI anew, but thought I should bring it to your attention since you unblocked him. Perhaps a warning from you would be helpful? I'm pretty sure a warning from me would not have much if any effect. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pmanderson is not under any civility restriction or probation to my knowledge. Usually, these are placed in WP:RESTRICT. I looked at the exchange in the diff you've posted and don't see this as a personal attack since he is commenting on your post rather than on you. Perhaps there is more? --RegentsPark (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is "Born2cycle disagrees with policy" a comment on my post rather than an ad hominem attack on me? Need I point out that the grammatical subject of that statement is a person? There is more on his talk page, where he concedes the basis for making that statement is his opinion of me from previous encounters ("a long-standing and idiosyncratic opinion"), not what I posted in this discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the entire post, rather than the single remark you quote above, I see: If we're going to have supports of this quality, I can only strongly oppose. Born2cycle disagrees with policy; that's fine, but the rest of us don't. It is more than reasonably clear that the 'disagrees with policy' is in the context of pmanderson's reading of the quality of your post. Indications of policy disagreements are certainly not personal attacks. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment about a person is a comment about a person and not a comment on a post regardless of context. Further, nothing I posted there warrants such a radical characterization of me as "Born2cycle disagrees with policy" implies. Remember, when I asked PMA to substantiate this statement, he had to rely on vague references to posts and edits I made elsewhere long ago; this was not a comment about anything I posted in the discussion at issue. It's an attack, intended to disparage me, plain and simple. But perhaps I'm missing something, if so, please quote my exact words from there that you believe warrants that characterization of me. It's like someone in a debate about morality in foreign policy with Bill Clinton stating that he disagrees with Clinton on his views about marital infidelity. Such a statement is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and only serves as a personal attack intended to disparage the person (and, by implication, anything he has to say).

Let me put it this way, in what I have gathered in my limited interactions with you, I sincerely doubt you would ever make a comment like that about anyone in that context or otherwise. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in question does appear to be a personal attack to at least one other editor, who writes, "This does seem like a personal attack to me, and I am sure Born2cycle respects policy as much as any other editor." [19]. This supports my point above that the assertion about me disagreeing with policy was a non sequitur unsupported by anything I posted there, and intended solely to disparage me and, by implication, anything I wrote. I was hoping we could nip this thing in the bud, to help PMA understand why these sorts of comments (this being a relatively minor example) are inappropriate. Unfortunately, I've apparently failed to convince you that this is indicative of a continuing general problematic pattern in behavior, and so instead of being able to help PMA see this and improve accordingly, the net effect of my raising this issue here will probably embolden him to continue in this inappropriate manner. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think you're on the wrong track here. I hope I would never express myself in the way pmanderson did in that post but would not take umbrage if someone addressed me thusly. (Personally, I would find the quality part of his post slightly upsetting and the policy part quite meaningless.) If I were in your shoes, I would ask, preferably on the article talk page, what policy he believes your comment violates but would not see this as a civility issue or a personal attack. Given the general tenor of discourse and your long history on wikipedia, I am surprised you think it does. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [20]. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can explain this more successfully than I have managed, please do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's all been explained reasonably well. The rest is up to born2cycle. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that I was falsely accused of misrepresenting policy (which implies acting in bad faith), without any indication whatsoever of how policy was supposedly misrepresented, and disagreeing with policy (again without any basis whatsoever). If false accusations are not personal attacks made specifically to disparage the person they are directed at, what are they? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are personal attacks and there is rhetoric. This is just rhetoric. Asking for an explanation as to how your view disagrees with policy is the right thing to do. (Though, I would not have framed it the way you have done. Too defensive and you have lost the moral high ground. Never a good place to be in a contentious discussion.) --RegentsPark (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Cambridge review

Thank you for taking the time to research the issue raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incorrectly_closed_move_request_at_Cambridge.

I presume we agree there is a big difference between reviewing a challenged decision about a discussion and deciding whether a significant error was made in that decision vs. reviewing the discussion anew without regard to the soundness of the challenged decision. The difference is significant because if challenges to decisions don't review the decision but simply re-evaluate the discussion from scratch, the effect of that is to encourage using the challenge process as a kind of forum shopping. It is my understanding that appeals courts in the "real world" review appealed decisions before "retrying", and only make decisions anew if an error is discovered in the appealed decision. This seems to be done for very good reasons that also apply to Wikipedia. If you don't agree, please let me know.

So, I'm curious as to why in this case you reviewed the discussion, apparently without reviewing the decision itself, much less finding any errors in it. That is my impression since I've been given no indication about what error I may have made in the original decision. I've seen closes reviewed by admins in the past, including my own "non-admin closes of contentious discussions", and I don't believe I've ever seen the earlier decision ignored and the discussion simply re-evaluated as you apparently chose to do in this case.

I'm also very concerned about the judgement that "page hits are not much use in this situation because for all we know, every US city searcher might be typing Cambridge, Mass", which appears to be key to your decision to close as "no consensus to move". By this reasoning "page hits are not much use" in any primary topic determination, because we never know what searchers might be typing. But if that's true, that puts into question countless naming decisions made in Wikipedia since its inception, and continuing to occur every day. I suggest this is a fundamental error in the reasoning, the kind of error I expected the reviewer of my decision to identify if my decision was not affirmed.

Since this decision about the significance of page view counts in primary topic determinations has widespread implications, would you please re-evaluate this decision accordingly, or ask someone else? Thanks. -Born2cycle (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering when you'd get around to moving the question to my talk page :) I think you've misread my close. I closed the move discussion as 'no consensus' because the primary topic rationale is weakly supported and because there are other factors in support of not moving it as well. A no consensus decision simply means that there is no consensus to move the article and does not necessarily imply that one title is superior to another. This may or may not be the the perfect solution but It is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise - with the understanding that the article is gradually improving - than to try to fight to implement a particular 'perfect' version immediately. Note that consensus is not immutable and can change and, presumably, out of the welter of place name discussions going on, something will emerge that will give a better sense as to where consensus lies. About reviewing your earlier close, I will be happy to comment on it if you like but I think it is fairly obvious that there isn't a consensus to move the article at this time. If I may take the liberty of adding a personal comment, your non-admin close of a contentious discussion in which you apparently have a personal interest was a bold move on your part. Bold moves are generally good and, IMO, are helpful for this project. But it is also a good idea to know when a particular move has not paid off and to move on. Fighting a lost battle is not a good way to win a war. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By saying "I closed the move discussion as 'no consensus' because the primary topic rationale is weakly supported and because there are other factors in support of not moving it as well", you seem to imply that in a move discussion the Support side has the burden to show consensus; if that burden is not met then that means "no consensus" and the article is not moved. I agree with that, except in cases where primary topic is at issue, like this one. When there is a claim for primary topic, I view the burden to be on the side of the primary topic claim. From that perspective the primary topic rationale was very weakly supported (I'd go as far as saying consensus, broadly interpreted - not just counting votes - was that the current use is not primary), therefore the article had to move, period. That seems to be how RM decisions go (when primary topic is at issue), and I've been supported by other admins when making decisions accordingly. That's what is at issue here. If all closers flip a coin on this point, well, that's how we might as well be making these decisions... by flipping a coin. I suggest there is a better way. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the primary topic claim has not been shown to be incorrect. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to agree to disagree on whether the claim of primary topic has not been shown to be incorrect, but, more importantly, this point is moot. It might be relevant from the POV that the burden is always on those favoring a move, but it is my understanding that that is not how RM decisions have been made for quite some time when primary topic determination is an issue.

That is, in order to comply with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the predominant POV among closing admins has been that those who support having an article at the plain name have the burden to show that that article meets primary topic criteria, regardless of whether the discussion is about moving the article in question to, or away from, the plain name. Thus, if those opposing the move of an article from its current place at a plain undisambiguated name cannot show that it is the primary topic for the name, then the move should occur, regardless of whether those in support can show that that article's topic is not primary for that name.

For example, a few weeks ago I made a closing decision accordingly at what was then Talk:Stockman (now Talk:Stockman (Australia)#Requested_move). As with Cambridge, there was consensus that the topic in question was primary in one country (Australia for stockman; England for Cambridge), but the claim that the topic was the primary use beyond that one country was not shown, so I found no consensus to keep that article at Stockman, despite the majority of those participating favoring that the article not be moved. That decision was challenged, and it was supported by an uninvolved admin here. So I applied the same reasoning at Cambridge.

Don't you agree that if we don't get some consistency on this point about who has the burden in these decisions involving primary topic determination, then we might as well be using a coin toss to decide them? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're trying to construct a straw man argument. The bottom line is that the primary topic claim has not been shown to be incorrect. In which case there is no reason to move the article away from the current title, with or without a coin toss. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out an unstated premise in your argument -- that those in support of the move have the burden to show that the primary topic claim is incorrect -- is not constructing a straw man. If your argument is not based on that premise, then how can your point be the bottom line? There is no straw man construction here.

You're ignoring my point, which is that your point, the primary topic claim [that the city in England is the primary use of Cambridge] has not been shown to be incorrect, even if true, is irrelevant.

The bottom line in situations where primary topic determination is at issue is not whether the primary topic claim has been shown to be incorrect, but whether the claim has been shown to be correct. If the primary topic claim is not shown to be correct, then the article in question should not be at the plain undisambiguated name. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it should be fairly obvious from reading my close, the reason for the no consensus decision was not based on a single argument. I do understand your frustration. There have been numerous situations where I have been disappointed with this consensus determination or that but have learned that it is best to move on because picking on one part of a close reasoning and repeatedly bringing it up because you don't agree with a close is borderline tendentious. At this point, if you continue to believe that my close was incorrect, I suggest you take it up in the form of an RfC on that page because this discussion is fairly obviously not going to go anywhere. Regards --RegentsPark (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My most recent statements were in regards to your "bottom line" point made here. Regardless, my concern is about an issue underlying the particular decision here, but which has far greater implications. But you don't seem to share that concern. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
has far greater implications. But you don't seem to share that concern. Nope. I am, by nature, unsuited to grandiosity. Since you are, I suggest you just take this elsewhere. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"indigenous aryans" and India

Can you weigh in on the discussion going on in the India talk page. We have reached a standstill and could help benefit from your views.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark&oldid=394636991"