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
ChessMasta (talk | contribs)
137 edits
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bart%C5%82omiej_Macieja&diff=prev&oldid=335907778
Line 252: Line 252:
: I dont understand why they argued over few things, seewolf was totally out of line, such reverts r pure vandalism, sad i took wikipedia 8 days to notice!
: I dont understand why they argued over few things, seewolf was totally out of line, such reverts r pure vandalism, sad i took wikipedia 8 days to notice!
: seewolf's insane reverts/vandalism:
: seewolf's insane reverts/vandalism:
: direct proof http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bart%C5%82omiej_Macieja&diff=prev&oldid=335907778
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.162.212.225
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.162.212.225
==Next WikiProject Report==
==Next WikiProject Report==

Revision as of 19:52, 20 January 2010

WikiProject Novels December 2009 Newsletter

Alan16 (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarati

Hey Regents, fancy seeing you here! Oh, this is your talkpage. Listen, I've been involved in Tarati, God knows why--do you know what the proper template is for an infobox? There seems to be no "villages of Pakistan," and I don't want to pick the wrong one. Your help, as always, is greatly appreciated. Toodle pips, Drmies (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't go wrong with {{Infobox settlement}} as any region specific templates pull off of that one. You should also check with Dr Blofeld, he was taking quite a few regional templates to TfD a few months ago, and he has some strong opinions and good knowledge on this. Btw, RP is apparently on vacation, per the note at the top. -SpacemanSpiff 20:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On vacation again?? Thanks Spiff, Drmies (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What'dya'mean'again? (I'm freezing out here - who's idea was this anyway!). I see SpacemanSpiff has fixed you up nicely. Thanks spiff. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

  • User:Ottava Rima is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 1 year.
  • User:Moreschi is admonished for posting editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors.
  • The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for the imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies. The community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.

For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

British India

The term British India was quoted by Parliament of Britain. The term was never accepted by India, its derogatory to Indians. India was never part of Britian, it was ruled by British. I would like term to be changed to British rule in India or British ruled India where applicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.96.104 (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of qualitative judgements we use whatever terms are reliably sourced. In this case, apparently British India is the more reliably sourced and academically acceptable term. If you feel otherwise, you should bring your sources to the talk page of the articles in question. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Happy Holidays

... to you, and thanks for all the work you and your fellow mentors have done supporting Mattisse this year. --JN466 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Greetings of the Season
A merry good morning I wish you, My friends both great and small.
When the world, for his fare, shall press you, may you n'er go to the wall. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#&^$%&

As our resident mediator on British-India topics, couldn't you have jumped in a bit sooner at Talk:Company rule in India and Talk:East India Company, and saved me much effort ?! PS: Does, asking someone skiing the Alps to break a leg bring them good luck or bad ? ;-) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotta be kidding! You are the resident mediator on all subjects India (past and present)! Now I better get some sleep or I might actually break a leg tomorrow, definitely bad luck on the slopes though good luck for the Scottish play (though the snow is soft, fresh, and still falling - perfect!). I'm not likely to have wikipedia access for the next few days - so good luck (and break a leg!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted you in 3O matter

Just thought that you might like to know that I quoted you in a 3O opinion. See User_talk:OrangeDog#regpkqt. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! My 15 words of fame! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

My RFA →→→

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Greetings

Hi RegentsPark,

Thanks for all your help and support in the year 2009. Wishing you a Wonderful, Prosperous New Year 2010.

Radiantenergy (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Hope you had a great time in Europe. When you find it convenient, could you take a look at British Raj, where the same editor user:Eraserhead1 is looking to add material. My memory of the page is that there was some concern that the history section was too long and that the first two subsections of it, both about prehistory, should be majorly pruned. Unfortunately, I am still traveling and won't have much time until after the third week of January for even routine editing, much less ideological battles. So, if you can add your input there, it would be great. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy not to add anything to the History section (i.e. stuff on the 1857 rebellion) of that article until after the 15th January. Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I want to second the thanks above by JN466, and express my appreciation to you for continuing to serve as my mentor/adviser. I seek to fulfill your expectations and not to let you down by poor behavior. Wishing you a very wonderful New Year. Warmest regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Mattisse. Your contribution to the project is amazing! All the best for 2010. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replied. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and curiosity. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (I think!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalax

Hello, I just wanted to suggest that if you wish to discuss relevance and content of the german article with me, we do it on the articles discussion page instead of the Noticeboard for India-Related Topics. Hope that is fine with you. Sas2009 (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Now I'll head to German school, learn the language, and get back to you in a few years. Guten tag till then! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope I was not too patronizing, I was thinking an English comment would be ok in german wikipedia, being quite new to this I am not sure. But if you speak no german at all, discussing content is going to be difficult ;) Sas2009 (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Hello

Hello. I think its been a long time since we talked. When you find it convenient, pls have a look at National Institute of Technology, Srinagar and tell me how can I improve its rating. Thanks and wish you a happy new year 2010. Rohit Reddy™ (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have you back (and already fixing the news portal!). I'll take a look at the NIT article - though not for a couple of days. Happy New Year to you as well. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

users removing block notices

Hey- this is regarding this decline at WP:RFPP. Per guideline at WP:BLANKING, whois templates, blocked templates (while the user is blocked), and declined unblock notices (again, while blocked) are to remain. My general rule is I'll reblock the user with talk page access revoked if they've "abused" it more than once- that gives them a chance to cool off and/or read what is being said without revoking it needlessly. Anyhow, that's just my take. tedder (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I don't see anything wrong with a user removing a block notice (especially in this particular case - why add fuel to the fire) but these sort of differences are what makes wikipedia work! (I notice now that talk page privileges were revoked anyway, by the blocking admin.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I can certainly respect the overriding rule, especially when it helps with civility. tedder (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but WP:BLANKING does not prevent a user from removing block notice. Perhaps the guideline should be updated, but at present a user who removes such notices is acting well within userpage policy and should not be blocked from editing their talk page solely for such removal. Abecedare (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The only reason to take away talk page privileges is if the user is being disruptive. Removing block notices is not disruptive and, in this particular case, will only make a normally productive user angrier. No point in that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum) Looks like this was discussed on ANI and resolved. While I was ruminating about nothing whatsoever :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

ArbCom and the Signpost

Hey, RP, the Signpost is looking for someone to write the Arbitration reports (see this week's from the editor and previous arbitration report). Interested? — Athaenara ✉ 23:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I'm not sure I'm reliable enough to deliver a weekly report but, on the other hand, I suppose it's time I made myself useful :) But, I see there are a couple of editors already lined up so that gives me time to procrastinate. Intriguing idea though (working on the signpost) and I might add myself to a backup list. Thanks (for thinking of me)! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I thought of you because you're good at mediation/arbitration sorts of things (I think so, anyway) and when you write about something you typically do it right (articulately and objectively). Every issue does seem like a big obligation to take on, but maybe you could alternate with other editors or be part of an editorial team for it. — Athaenara ✉ 05:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're twisting my arm :) I signed up as a backup for the WikiProject Report (arbitration reports seems oversubscribed to me)! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you signed up as a backup for WikiProject Report. We could make a strong team, either collaborating on each report or taking turns producing reports. I was planning to revive the report in the next Signpost with a retrospective on the 40+ projects that were previously featured. Would you like to help with that article or start next week's article? -Mabeenot (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job on that, y'all! — Athaenara ✉ 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me answer a question. What does it mean when someone who edits a wikipedia article states he considers himself "involved" and what does it mean to "stub an article"? any advice you can give would be appreciated. 189.38.250.30 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved means (roughly) that the editor has edited the content of the article and cannot be guaranteed to view the material dispassionately. To stub an article means to reduce it to a bare minimum (usually the part that indicates notability and is verifiable). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taconic State Parkway

Thanks! I have a little bit more to do and then a copy edit to finish (on hard copy) then implement; and after that I intend on taking it to PR, and probably splitting off the history section as a daughter article if people feel that needs to be done. Then GA, and later in the year if I can get out there and take some more pics I think it could be FA material. We'll see. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Sure, I'll take the lead for now. If you'd like to pick the next WikiProject and start looking for editors to interview, that would be great. I've listed some WikiProjects that have recently started up, but you're free to choose something else if none of these sound interesting:

I'm almost done with next week's report, so the new report will be for the week after (January 25). -Mabeenot (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood

Just as trivia: Besides the Punjabi cultural influence the language and aesthetics of early "Hindi" cinema was also greatly affected by Parsi theatre (a red link - ironic, isn't it!). Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What

do you see as a problem w/using The American Jewish Historical Society as a source?

Also, the better course if you cannot get a link to work is to put in a dead link template, rather than to delete it. That, among other things, allows bots to find the original and replace the existing w/the archived original. Deleting dead links just because they are dead interferes with that process, and is therefore a deprecated approach.

Thanks, and happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one could put in a dead link template but nypress.com seems hardly worth it. Which one is the American Jewish Historical Society source? All I see is nypress, a blog, and jewsinsport.org. None of them seem even remotely qualified as a reliable source. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jews In Sports is the digital archive record of the American Jewish Historical Society. What is your basis for saying it is not even remotely qualified as an RS?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that one. If you read the cited article, it makes no mention of 'black jew', the claim it is supposed to support in wikipedia's article. One should be always be extra careful in a blp. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, do I understand correctly that you are no longer saying it is not an RS? But are now saying that you do not read the phrase: "An African-American whose family has declared themselves Jewish" to be supportive (with other citations) of the text "Judah is an avowed Israelite, or Black Jew"? If that is your position (and I'm not sure, with the other text, it would necessarily be the case, the appropriate course would be to shift the gloss in the text -- not, as you have done, to delete the footnote. Once the footnotes are deleted, they are lost to future editors.
Or one could just google the issue and find other RSs such as this one that refer to the Black family as Israelites, or this one that refers to him as a black Israelite.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why we're having this conversation. You are obviously perfectly capable of googling and 'shifting the gloss in the text' ( (the meaning of that statement completely escapes me = I'm a matte guy myself!) yourself and I'm hardly likely to start an edit war on a couple of dead link templates. If your intent is to teach me the way you think we should do things, consider the lesson learned if that's what makes you happy. If you are piqued that I declined your request for protection, consider that you could have done all that (the googling and dead link thingy) yourself when the IP complained about dead links and racist remarks rather than labeling their edits as vandalism. This conversation is quite unproductive and I'm sure both of us have better things to do. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Now that I've looked at the article with more care, I have a few suggestions which I will make on the talk page. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP's complaints were of quite a different tenor. Had they been, as yours were, that the site of American Jewish Historical Society is not an RS, I would have responded as I did above. You indicated the IP might be correct on the basis that an RS was not an RS, and on the basis that the text appeared incorrect when the text is clearly RS-supported. I thought it acceptable to mention my contrary view on both points. I offer you a cup of tea.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. We were both getting hung up on a distraction and a cup of tea hits the right spot. May I offer you a chocolate chip cookie to dunk in your tea? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offer accepted and appreciated. Best wishes for a happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should AfD United States and state terrorism

The article is propaganda, one-sided, skewed in its very title.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info on Macieja/Seewolf case

Im posting this for records keepin, case progress:[1]

I dont understand why they argued over few things, seewolf was totally out of line, such reverts r pure vandalism, sad i took wikipedia 8 days to notice!
seewolf's insane reverts/vandalism:
direct proof http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bart%C5%82omiej_Macieja&diff=prev&oldid=335907778

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.162.212.225

Next WikiProject Report

Don't worry about having to put an article together for next week. We can work on it together. I just thought you'd like to pick the project. Burma and Hudson Valley may have limited appeal to people outside Southeast Asia and New York, but either one would work. I noticed you're involved with WikiProject Novels which is another possibility. There's also the option of doing a newly founded project like WikiProject Java. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's try Novels. I'll start something off tomorrow. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Q&A is good when you can't think of anything. I'll give it a go!. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Monet

Bonjour Regent,

The history of Monet's page is one of multi daily vandalism/revert/vandalism/revert...

On 14 January, you half-protected the page, [2], but how good can this be if only for three days? The minute the half-protection was lifted, vandalism came back.

Can you put the half-protection back with no limit on it?

Merci d'avance, Frania W. (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No problem. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your speed. Merci beaucoup ! Frania W. (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark&oldid=339011669"