Jump to content

User talk:RegentsPark

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Accounting4Taste (talk | contribs) at 20:00, 11 August 2010 (correction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark&oldid=378416492"