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 Paansing (talk | contribs) at 18:54, 22 June 2012 (→‎consensus on caste photo montage: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tree shaping and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Invite to WikiConference India 2011


Hi RegentsPark,

The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011.
You can see our Official website, the Facebook event and our Scholarship form.

But the activities start now with the 100 day long WikiOutreach.

As you are part of WikiProject India community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience. Thank you for your contributions.

We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011

talkback

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

Delhi Residency

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

Talkback

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

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Photo_montages_in_infoboxes_of_caste.2Fcommunity_articles.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--AshLey Msg 15:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Dear RegentsPark, I apologize for being harsh on anyone. But please I am asking because I do not know whom to ask. Could you please tell me what is the solution when there is lots of WP:RS but no consensus. What needs to be done in such cases on the wikipedia? But in anyway I apologize for being harsh. Could you please help me and suggest a solution. Best regards and thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jammu and Kashmir freedom movement

Hi. Could you please elaborate on what you think does not meet WP:NPOV at Template:Jammu and Kashmir freedom movement? Since AfD is not a stack of !votes, but rather constructive arguments, I would like to see a more in-depth response from you. As you are an admin, I hope you would be able to disregard any WP:COI for a minute and take this issue constructively. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may also like to review Template:Baloch nationalism or Template:Sindhi nationalism, using the precedents currently being set at this AfD, I suppose they should be nominated all in one go. Mar4d (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was pretty clearly non-neutral but have elaborated on the TfD. --regentspark (comment) 14:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied there. Mar4d (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But I'm pretty much done with this one. It is clearly a non-neutral template (imo) but let the TfD figure this out. --regentspark (comment) 16:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I may be willing to support a rename of the template to Kashmir conflict. That would be neutral and useful. --regentspark (comment) 16:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

IBAN vio

Block for it please, I will point out I was blocked by Magog even though I had reverted a comment immediately. Darkness Shines (talk)

I can't because of the discussion at the tfd. Though it is a definite violation and you can quote me on that. Sorry. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Figured that so postmen on ani, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've not violated. See my explanation at ANI so that you are aware of previous clarifications that defined the scope of the ban. Also replied on my talk. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commented at ani. --regentspark (comment) 17:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tag and Assess 2012

Thank You
With the help of contributors like you, the Tag and Assess 2012 project has achieved the planned objectives. Close to 65,000 articles have been assessed and 19,000 articles have been added to the scope of the project. Please do watch out for the post tag and assess activities. Thanks a lot. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection at Chaurasia

Hi, is there any chance that you or one of your stalkers might semi-protect Chaurasia for 24 hours? I have filed a report at SPI. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done for 24 hours. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I suspect that the socking goes back a long time but I can only deal with the recent ones & hope that the checkuser takes a rummage through the drawer. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highstakes00

Dear RP, as you are familiar with the SPA (see here) and were the one dealing with it. I am pretty sure the user is a sock of someone we may very well all know. I am not sure of whom though. Indications may be delivered by checking who he has been backing up. The account was earlier created only for the matter of hounding DS. It was blocked for it, as you know. When it was unblocked (because of DS's willingness to give it a second chance) with the condition not to continue that style of editing, the account remained inactive for some weeks.[1] Yesterday it returned, now to follow me around[2][3] and also comment on DS-created articles.[4] Back then Highstakes was supported by now blocked and confirmed sock User:I am Agent X who was using a webproxy to hide the identity of the sock master. WP:Duck may apply here. JCAla (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really look at anything till tomorrow. Could you check in with Salvio and see what he says? --regentspark (comment) 16:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. :) JCAla (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi both, I am investigating the issue; for the moment, however, I know too little about it to comment extensively, but I'll say that his most recent actions appear troubling, though, honestly, I'm not sure they have crossed the line into hounding yet. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone ever check to see if he uses proxies or a web host? And what is the question sal wants to ask. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to be unpleasant, but the fact I want to ask such a question privately should be an indication that I'd rather keep this between the two of us for the moment... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does look troubling, particularly stuff like this. Let's see what Sal comes up with but a firm warning is the appropriate action at this time. JCAIa, if you'd like to speculate on whose sock highstakes might be, feel free to email me or Sal. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old Sockpuppeteer Appears Again?

Do you remember the sockpuppet investigation of Xn4 from over three years ago? Well, I have a feeling that Xn4 has appeared again in the form of Moonraker (talk · contribs). I've provided some evidence on Talk:British_Raj#Is_Moonraker_the_same_as_banned_editor_Xn4.3F. If you can help in any way, it would be great. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the Xn4 case. Let me do some research on this. --regentspark (comment) 14:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Talkback

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at TopGun's talk page.
Message added 19:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Toddst1 (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I wish to know if it is an Iban violation to link to the history of an article while stating the article is being blanked, after one part of the Iban had removed a large section of content per wp:sps. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

diffs? --regentspark (comment) 12:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[5] This is the edit I am referring to. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It might be or it might not so let it pass. The article doesn't seem to have been blanked by anyone (unless I've missed something) and all TG links to is to the history. He could be commenting on your prod or he could be commenting on vibhijain's AfD. --regentspark (comment) 14:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for looking. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of Champagne

So my History of Champagne complaint just gets archived? What's up with that? Kauffner (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like that. I think that Amatulic should not have closed the second RM, particularly after reading the diff that brought him to the page, but the issue is not getting traction at ANI and that is pretty much the way it's going to go. Sorry. --regentspark (comment) 13:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed it's same people as with the Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast issue. Perhaps it is, pour la France. I put the RMs I am working on here, if you are interested. Kauffner (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at TopGun's talk page.
Message added 16:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Re: Mediation Question

Hi RegentsPark, I've responded to your question. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick. I'll take a look in a bit. Thanks for the heads up! --regentspark (comment) 17:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

presenting an editing plan for the future

I had[6], it was roundly ignored. The offer still stands, any article which are the focus on Pakistan I will refrain from editing and confine myself to talk page discussion only. I would still want to edit Afghanistan related articles, specifically the Taliban one which I have done a great deal of work on. I do not see how I can be fairer than this. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep that in focus (and you can always bring it up again). But, I do suggest you try to keep a low profile by not arguing each point. Part of the problem with both you as well as TG is the extensive back and forth that goes on. People get tired of seeing it and, after a while, it is easier to kick the editors out than it is to deal with the problem. Not fair but that's wikipedia for you. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with both of you. Keep that editing plan. That's great and continue your anti-sock and pro-reliable source work. So, RP, what do you say about the alternative proposal as sort of a second chance? JCAla (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see where consensus ends up. I'd like to keep both TG and DS editing, the content is, imo, worth the headache :) --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned you at ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion_review.2C_please, where all should hopefully become clear. Although I am expecting to be given short shrift for posting the request there :( - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one said life was easy :) --regentspark (comment) 13:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am afraid that some people seem to think that consensus requires that everything is formally closed and that non-policy based arguments are valid. And they keep insisting on this despite umpteen others trying to correct that misguided impression. Still, an uninvolved review can do no harm. I am prepared to turn this into a formal RfC if necessary. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what happens. Looking at the montage at St Thomas Christians, I can see why you don't like these montages. None of the people in the montage are remotely well known and the entire thing is meaningless in encyclopedic terms. A picture of a typical church would be far more useful.--regentspark (comment) 16:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is perhaps no surprise that the request received no useful response. Do you have any thoughts regarding a more suitable noticeboard? I have my doubts regarding WP:DRN being that place, nor is WP:3O appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me reread the discussion and get back to you. --regentspark (comment) 11:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have summarized the discussion reasonably accurate there. Based on my reading of the discussion, I believe the onus for DR is on the editors who want photos in the montage. Any attempt to restore deleted montages without an RfC or a new consensus is going to be disruptive and tendentious. --regentspark (comment) 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for providing a thorough rationale at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm,or perhaps not quite as throrough as you and I first thought. A lawyer has spotted a loophole. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And they have also raised it in this thread at WP:AN. They obviously are not going to give up! - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colour me suspicious

Recall that IP I reverted which I thought was a sock and got me in the poop?[7] Well call me a suspicious bugger but[8] Same IP range and ISP appearing on a new article I created strikes me as unusual. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wide range so there's not much you can do even if it's not just coincidence. But keep watching. Meanwhile, I suggest treating the IP as clean unless you get positive evidence to the contrary. (Not call it a sock, not violate your 1RR restriction, etc.) If you do get positive evidence, drop a note on SpacemanSpiff's talk page - I'm not a good sock detector! --regentspark (comment) 02:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You got it boss. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Léon: The Professional

Hi there. As someone who was involved in the Trollhunter page move discussion, I would appreciate your input on a similar matter. Thanks. Film Fan (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers F.C.

Could you add the Fully protected lock template to the page thanks. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done. --regentspark (comment) 00:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the verifiability RfC

Hello RegentsPark, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the MedCab mediation about the verifiability policy. We're in the process of drafting an RfC on the wording of the lede of the policy page, and we're very nearly ready to put it up live. Before we can do that, though, we need to sort out the issue of who can close it. The mediation participants seem very keen that you should be one of the closers, seeing as you closed the previous RfC on the issue back in December. I know that closing the previous discussion was a lot of work, but would you be willing to do it again? Let me know if you would, or if you would prefer to do things a different way. Also, as I'm not sure that the mediation participants really have the right to decide how the RfC gets closed, I'm just about to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Question about closing the verifiability RfC to get some opinions on this from the community. You're mentioned there, so you might want to comment if you feel so inclined. Also, if you need any clarification on any of this, just ask. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the pump. --regentspark (comment) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Sorry for the miscommunication, but it looks like the previous plan we made at the mediation has fallen through - some of the mediation participants who hadn't previously commented consider you and the other two closers to be involved. So it looks like we'll have to shelve that for now. The latest plan is to find three admins who have had no previous involvement with the process at all, and because of this I've opened up a call for uninvolved admins at the administrators' noticeboard. Thanks for offering to help, though - it is much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Probably better that a completely new set of admins close it anyway. Variety! --regentspark (comment) 15:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Closing the discussion at ANI

There seems to be consensus for your proposal to remove the IBAN on TopGun and Darkness Shines. I think it might be a good time to suggest that they return to the mediation. There is a chance that conditions now support success in dispute resolution. Participants agreed (some time ago, on the mediation talk page) to cease conduct-related interaction outside of the mediation. They haven't agreed to the other condition the mediators suggested at ANI (to cease major edits). The mediators can live with that, provided that article edits are not a source of conflict. Would you be willing to close the discussion at ANI? Sunray (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really close it since I'm the proposer. But I've put in a note and hopefully some admin will swing by and close it. --regentspark (comment) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

consensus on caste photo montage

Consensus was not reached, Paansing (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark&oldid=498872669"