User talk:RegentsPark

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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

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.

Request

FPaS is stalking my edits, I do not want him stalking my edits, would you offer to check my edits occasionally to ensure I am not violating policy? I trust you to be fair and even as you have always been. If you were to offer to do random checks to ensure I am complying with policy then FPaS can stop stalking and harrasing me. Please consider this. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't really go around accusing people of stalking without some evidence DS. Regardless, I'll check in on your edits from time to time. --regentspark (comment) 22:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. What happened with the McKhan SPI? --regentspark (comment) 23:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing so far with the McKhan SPI. And FPaS has said on his talk page he is stalking me, and has refused to stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(out)McKhan got blocked for a month, I do not understand why he is not banned given his long term abuse of socks and personal attacks. A question, can I edit this article yet?[1] Sal asked me to leave it for a week, which was about three weeks ago, as you know he is not well and has not been online. I want to make sure that my ass does not get blocked if I edit it. The article is full of self published sources, and apparently the Northern Alliance are terrorists, even though no source says they are :o) and spying is also terrorism according to that "article". Personally I think is ought to be deleted as the only actual content which belongs there is the usual accusations form Pakistan. However I would like to try and clean it up. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I don't see why not. I'll drop a note on Salvio's talk page letting him know. Looking at the article history, I'm going to suggest that (a) don't tag the article - that would be unnecessarily confrontational, and (b) go ahead and make your changes but make sure you explain your rationale on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 14:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So cleaning it up has proved impossible, every edit I make gets reverted. I am considering nominating it for deletion, the article is just one long list of allegations from Pakistan. I do not think there is a single source which does not say "Pakistan alleges". Any advice? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I missed this (it was hiding behind the signpost change). You can of course nominate it for deletion, no reason why not. But, look carefully at the previous deletion discussion and make sure your arguments are strong ones (if you want to get a good result - Wikipedia seems to be willing to keep almost anything these days). --regentspark (comment) 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to be willing to keep almost anything these days Well that's obvious, I'm still here Darkness Shines (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not for want of trying :) --regentspark (comment) 21:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My topic ban

I feel I need to share with you some thoughts I've just posted on my Talk page in response to my topic ban. I'm sure your action is made in good faith, but as I've said below, I cannot see the point, apart from pleasing those who have different views from mine....

LOL. A victory for a kangaroo court. I have no idea what this ban is actually for. I gave up reading that attack thread (I now see that it's many threads) of hatred against me after the first few posts. The very first post accused me of name calling. That's something I don't do. Then I was told I had to keep being nice to someone persistently trying to add a religious perspective to a non-religious topic. Sorry, that's not going to help Wikipedia. Such editors just waste our time. Then I was accused of personal attacks. Again, no, I don't do that. I DO vigorously point out when someone has said something dumb, which is obviously not the same as saying they are dumb. Hell, I say dumb things myself, but I won't admit to being dumb. I was accused of bludgeoning people when I made a proposal to change policy. What I found was that people either didn't understand my proposal, so I felt justified in putting more effort into explaining it, or deliberately chose to misrepresent my position, which I should not be expected to put up with. I can deal with losing a debate, I cannot deal with being silenced with ignorance and bullshit.

I saw no point in trying to defend myself in such an environment. There was so much vituperative garbage at the start of the thread that I gave up reading for the sake of my sanity. I won't read it now. It would probably lead me to making more firm (but true) comments that wouldn't be liked by those editors who prefer artificial niceness to vigorous and honest debate.

So, I have no idea why I have been banned. My single goal here is to make a better encyclopaedia. I don't believe I've done anything wrong. That notice above certainly doesn't tell me the purpose. It will silence me at that topic. That will please those who disagree with my views in general. Was that the goal? Unfortunately it will also vindicate the actions of those who posted with hatred, ignorance and bigotry in that thread.

I wonder what people really think the ban will achieve in the longer term? I won't have changed after six months, especially when I don't know what my crime was. What's the point?

Please don't take offence at this. It's just a genuine expression of my feelings right now. I'm sure your intentions are good. And I would truly be interested in your thoughts on how one can defend oneself against bullshit, ignorance and bigotry here? There was far too much of that in those threads. (Please don't tell me what not to do. I'm looking for some positives.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

None so blind as one who will not see. HiLo48's "thoughts" echo the exact same rhetoric for which he received his topic ban, and I agree with Regentspark's intepretation of the consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a response to what I just posted. HiLo48 (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So it isn't.--WaltCip (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, I'm just the messenger. I do think we, all of us on Wikipedia, have become a site where editing restrictions are issued far too easily and, given the choice, I'd rather not topic ban anyone. However, the consensus on ANI was quite clear. I don't know much about you, I don't think we've ever interacted, but, based on the comments on ANI, and if I may take the liberty of making a suggestion, you might want to focus on Dweller's comment regarding the way you interact with other users (again, this comment is based only on the links in the ANI discussion). Moving forward, six months is not a long time, the ban is restricted to only one part of Wikipedia and there is plenty of other stuff you're probably interested in, and it is best to leave recriminations behind and focus on the future. One thing that came out of the ANI discussion was that almost everyone thought highly of you as an editor and as a someone with a focus on our encyclopedia building mission. Perhaps it is best to focus on this positive takeaway and to ruminate on why blocks and topic bans were being discussed at all. Something's gotta change and, since you can't possibly change a bunch of other people, ..... --regentspark (comment) 20:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I said above, too many of the posts at the start of that hate session were just that, hate posts, and I gave up reading it. I won't go back to it. There may have been some more rational posts later, but if you allow the crap to remain, why should I have to trawl through that dross to figure out which posts are sensible and which ones I should ignore. I won't even look for posts from one editor unless you can guarantee I won't see garbage on the way. I put considerable thoughts into my post at the top of this thread, as I do elsehwere. I appreciate your response, but most of my points still remain unanswered. HiLo48 (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(uninvolved admin here) Your responses thus far have closely corroborated with the evidence thus provided: you seem to consider it possible to make the most flagrantly incivil comments so long as they are structured in such a way as to not very specifically call anyone any names directly. If you cannot see this as problematic then so be it: I'm willing to accept that you do not consider these uncivil, and take you at your word that you don't think you've done anything wrong here. However, that is not how most people see it, and our standards of civility are defined by the community and not personally. I personally think a topic ban is getting off somewhat lightly given that this isn't specific to ITN but relates to your general approach to interaction with others, and that unless you adjust your behaviour (whether you can see the problem or not) it's likely to result in further restrictions in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I like to hope that admins can see logic when it's presented. What I am saying is that I stopped looking at the thread full of accusations against me simply because so many of the early ones were simply untrue. I didn't stick around. I knew that trying to defend myself would simply inflame things, and there were already some pretty rabid posts there. That those dishonest posts are still there is, to me, a big problem. My question is, how am I meant to identify genuine, realistic criticisms among all that garbage? That you now come back with term like "general approach to interaction" doesn't really help. I believe my comments are honest and realistic. They are the kinds of language I use in my daily life and work. (Which isn't even in the same country as most other editors. Maybe cultural differences...?) I don't know exactly what's wrong with my "general approach to interaction". Nothing has been explained in the notification of my ban. I am banned for six months. Then what? Many of you (obviously not all) don't like my style, but you seem to have great difficulty explaining exactly what my crime is. Many simply lied about it, which suggests hatred, rather than rational discussion. How can I change what comes naturally and what you all cannot honestly and precisely describe? HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm prepared to accept that it's a cultural thing, if only because of the vociferous protestations in the Malleus ArbCom case by an Australian editor that much of what the community considers egregious abuse qualifies as casual banter from his cultural perspective. It is difficult for me to explain in any more detail than was provided at ANI exactly what you're doing "wrong", but suffice to say that nearly everyone else seems to be able to reach the same conclusion given the evidence and it would be a remarkable coincidence for them all to be able to do so were there no case to be answered. As for what happens next: unless you are able to identify why your interaction style is seen as abusive, and avoid that in future, the likelihood is that you will end up back at ANI again in relatively short order. There's not a lot anyone except for you can do about that. If I were you I would avoid making negative comments in general regardless of at whom or what they are directed, as this seems to be the only sure-fire way of ensuring that the community does not take (unintended) offence at your comments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That reads much more like a threat than discussion. I see a lot of that on Wikipedia. "Be like us or be banned." Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Conformance with the community's norms of interaction is one of the five pillars, and it is necessary to ensure that such a massively diverse community is able to function. You accepted that when you signed up. For what it's worth, I spent a couple of hours fixing all the user boxes you use on your home page so that they line up properly: a minor kindness to show that I'm not out for your blood, and hopefully to impress upon you that it's unlikely anyone else is either. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's much better. But I can't accept that no-one's out for my blood. There were a lot of nasty, incorrect allegations at the start of the threads which led to my conviction. Dunno if they stopped. Saw no point in playing that game. It was a kangaroo court. And they were all still there when I had a quick glance yesterday. I cannot do anything but see that whole situation negatively. The posts were either malicious or incompetent. (Unless you can think of some other explanation.) And those allowing such bullshit to remain on display aren't helping Wikipedia much either. How can I discuss such material without using negative language? HiLo48 (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can attempt to see the matter from the other side, and you can refrain from using negative language when discussing the situation. You are making the choice not to. You are not obligated to give your opinion of other editors, and you are not obligated to characterise their motives. You are making the choice to do these things. You are not incapable of reading through the whole of the discussion no matter how much of it you may disagree with. You are making the choice to ignore it. All of these things are at your discretion to resolve. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, Chris is giving you some good advice here and you should pay attention to it. It is always important to understand the rules and norms of a social system you hang out in and to conform (largely) to those norms. On Wikipedia, speculating about the motives of other editors is generally not a good idea. I've been here long enough to see that editors, and this includes some excellent content writers, who end up believing that they are being victimized unfairly usually come to a bad end here. Where you go from here is entirely your call, but you may want to consider the undeniable fact that your current approach is not, fairly or unfairly, working very well. --regentspark (comment) 14:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So, Chris is allowed to speculate the no-one is out for my blood, and when I point out, with good evidence, that he is almost certainly wrong, I'm told to shut up! No, I don't easily conform to the conservative norm of artificial niceness in Wikipedia. Those lying about me do, apparently. (Any consequences? No!) I truly don't know where to go from here. Do I really have to accept the lies and bullshit in the attack thread that had me convicted? While I'm sure you mean well, I don't know if you guys have actually seen all this from my perspective yet. It's very difficult to pretend that all is sweetness and light out there. This process is supposed to be justice. It's nothing of the kind. And I still come back to my original point. I don't know what it is that had me convicted. I saw a thread with a lot of crap in it. And it had me banned. I didn't do the crimes I saw I was supposed to have done. How can I pick out the ones that do matter? And I saw malicious editors writing permanent bullshit about me, with total freedom to do so, and no consequences. I AM the victim here, in a system that allows lynchings. HiLo48 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well when you don't conform to the norms of society, that society usually retains their right to exclude you. Let me preface this by saying that to the best of my knowledge, I have never directly spoken to you and I really have no problem with you whatsoever. Now, maybe instead of being "artificially" nice like the rest of the community, as you claim, maybe you could try just being non-artificially blunt. Looking through your comments linked on AN/I, and through your comments related to the topic ban, you ooze defiance. No matter how ill-meaning or well-intentioned the comments directed towards you are made, you are defiant to any altering of your behavior. If you want someone to be honest, here it is: your comments and actions as of late, have been dick-like. Now, I'm not calling you a dick directly, but rather your comments, playing the victim and snubbing every comment regardless of how helpful someone is trying to be, is something that a dick would do. Acting like a dick is exactly why you have been topic banned. Now if you find this ironic, you should, because this is exactly what you have been doing to other users for several months. You act condescending towards them, telling them their comments are idiotic, when in fact you truly mean that they are idiots, pretending that you're commenting on something else. Maybe users got tired of those kinds of comments from you, and rightfully so, because saying those kinds of things repeatedly do nothing but come across as annoying at some point. To be quite frank with you, you deserve not only a topic ban, but a lengthy block. Your unwillingness to try and change anything despite specific examples and unwillingness to read a whole thread dedicated to your behavior, is exactly why you have been topic banned. You have been a detriment to In the News, and you're now banned from it for six months because of it. I think you're a terrific article contributor for the most part, but if you don't stop that behavior, you might end up not being here. I think the community has shown that it isn't trying to be artificial with you by enacting a topic ban, and you should maybe start to respect it a little if you intend to stick around. If your intent truly is to create the best encyclopedia possible, then it's time you start to prove it by moving on with your editing, leaving In the News behind you for now, and focusing on that. Regards, — Moe ε 09:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

• Recent research: Conflict dynamics, collaboration and emotions; digitization vs. copyright; WikiProject field notes; quality of medical articles; role of readers; Best Wiki Paper Award

• News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing

• Featured content: One of a kind

• Technology report: Talking performance with CT Woo and Green Semantic MediaWiki with Nischay Nahata

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

you are being mentioned here, so I chose to inform you, regards.--DBigXray 05:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I always seem to miss the interesting bits :) --regentspark (comment) 13:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please clarify

Not sure why this was an Inappropriate closure, on the other hand I feel that there is a CoI. You are very much involved in the discussion can/should you undo it? I might be missing something --sarvajna (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures. Not a COI issue asking for an admin to close a deletion discussion. --regentspark (comment) 23:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

• Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold

• News and notes: FDC portal launched

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Featured content: Casliber's words take root

• Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, I really appreciate the confidence you bestowed in me. Although I did not succeed, I certainly do feel glad that I had that experience and hope to continue making contributions to this site.

Take care. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 02:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Plug away. Sometimes, too often methinks, wikipedians are unable to see the forest for the trees! --regentspark (comment) 12:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you

Please explain to TG that there is no consensus for this[2] The admin who closed the RFC said it had to be discussed on how this went into the article, his only edits to this article is to add that crap. It will never get to FA status with that junk in it, it adds nothing to the article at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you take this up with Beeblebrox? I'm not sure what his close actually means. --regentspark (comment) 01:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC) (Addendum, I'll drop a note on that admins page.) --regentspark (comment) 01:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I did, he said it had to be discussed on how it was added. Then he said bugger off. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• DS made it very clear in the first RFC that he was talking about this specific text (see the very detailed specifications in the RFC summary)... it resulted in a keep and his removal is disruptive editwar against consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Also this article was just kept a month ago.. you are well aware of the conduct dispute here and with the fact that I created the article and IBAN was removed so that original issues could be seen... isn't this nomination after such a overwhelming consensus to keep, typical harassment? [3]. Note, DS's editwars are also being discussed at another admin's userpage [4] --lTopGunl (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the beeblebrox's close is that the specific statement attributed to the report can stay. But that the way in which it is presented can be worked out. TG, would you consider an alternative wording that keeps the attribution to the Pakistan government report but not at the same level of detail? --regentspark (comment) 01:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually the detail is what I am supporting, other wise it will just become a passing mention and will censor the details which are correctly attributed per the RFC. If you see DS's details in that summary he left no loophole that this be mistaken. The fact that it was still kept means it is time to let it go and work on other parts of the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. If that's the case then a second RfC seems the only way out. Beeblebrox's close unfortunately did a lot of handwaving on what should be included. If specific text cannot be decided on on the talk page, then an RfC with alternative texts is probably the only way out. --regentspark (comment) 01:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not my close, the problem is that these two would argue over whether rain is wet. The consensus at the RFC was that attribution be made clear in the article and that the edits reflect only what the sources say, allowing the reader to decide for themselves how much weight to give it. So, if this edit does those two things it is fine. If you can't figure out if it does or not between the three of you then you need WP:DR. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is your close, and if what you say above is how you saw that RFC were the majority said keep but not in a section of it's own or remove it altogether far outweighed the keep it as a section votes. Your close sucks. Were can I go to contest it? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume you (beeblebrox) have no comment on what the actual text of the article should be and assume that your close does not endorse the text in question. If the answer is no, then I suggest an RfC with actual text alternatives is the best way to proceed. If you endorse the text in question then some other level of DR would be necessary. --regentspark (comment) 17:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Something weird

I just went on RC patrol and saw a user editing another users sandbox, it looks like this new guy has opened two accounts[5] I doubt he knows about socking or such so could you have a word with him please? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening multiple accounts is not necessarily socking. I'd just drop a welcome message on his/her page and see where it goes. I could be wrong but the signs are that this may be a corporate account or an organization of some sort (which would be a different problem) but let's wait and see. --regentspark (comment) 02:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Turns out this is a school project. See User:Michaelh.dick/sandbox. --regentspark (comment) 21:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss

I saw your comment on WP:Articles for deletion/Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden page. I see you have experience. Hence, I humbly request you to provide your feedback here, I hope you don't mind. Your opinion will be much appreciated if you respond. Thank you. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 19:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is merely a compendium of allegations that are already in the death of bin laden article. To me, the article appears to be a POV fork designed to highlight an anti-Pakistan point (the fact that the article was created by mukeshkumaryadav does not surprise me). Let's just see how the AfD plays out. --regentspark (comment) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to seem persistent here but I am also perplexed. So could you please enlighten me as to exactly which of the notability guidelines does the subject of this article not meet? What qualifies as a "POV fork" or not, is itself based on a POV judgement, don't you think?

"compendium of allegations" — well-verified, note-worthy allegations of paramount importance by some very notable political figures, yes.

And I would be very obliged if you could explain specifically how the WP:POVFORK applies to the deletion discussion at hand.
Don't mind but, IMO, the sole claim of POV is itself a POV. I, for one, do not think that the article is based upon patent nonsense. Plus, of course, there are acceptable forms of forking.

As a side note, I don't know, nor do I care, who "mukeshkumaryadav" is. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 07:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

From WP:POVFORK. another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. Now, if you don't mind, I've given my opinion in the deletion discussion and have no particular interest in whether the article stays or goes. Let's just leave it at that. --regentspark (comment) 12:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

RM close review

Needless to say, I find your close decision quite surprising. I would like to ask you to reconsider. My read of 10 out of 12 !votes for "global financial crisis of 2008" is that it does count as consensus. User:Smallbones and User:Bobrayner, it seems[6][7][8], were under the same impression. In your close you never even referred to that !vote count. Did you miss it? If not, I should let you know that I will be considering to put this administrative action for review and seek your input. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 19:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yaniv256. Yes, I did see the table - kinda hard to miss :). But, do note that consensus is not a matter of vote counting. Reading the discussion, two things were clear: (1) that there was a concern that limiting the title to only 2008 would be too restrictive, and (2) that there was only reluctant support for the 2008 only title. Under such circumstances, I have no choice but to assume that there is no consensus title and, generally, that means that the current title stays. No consensus is not an endorsement of the current title, you need to work at figuring out an alternative or wait for reality to catch up. Meanwhile, of course you can take this to a move review. That process exists to be used. Warm regards. --regentspark (comment) 00:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you mind clearifing what you mean by "wait for reality to catch up"? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In this context, what I mean is that reliable sources will tell us what to call the crisis. --regentspark (comment) 02:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I am particularly intrigued by, 1) how come my David Romer 4ed Econ PhD macro textbook and the many sources provided by Smallbones were not good enough for you, and 2) why did you not join the discussion to raise such concerns, letting the sources provided go unchallenged and so undefended. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And 3) I was under the impression that a no consensus decision is warranted when it adequately describes the positions expressed by the discussion participants, regardless of the merit or fault of the sources they mulled over in their discussion. Am I missing something? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

4) It occurred to me that you may not understand that the reason we didn't spend much time discussing sources is that this has been endlessly discussed in previous RfCs and we were all quite familiar with facts that you may not be aware of. Could that be the case? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 10:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yaniv256. I did scan the prior discussions. My understanding from those discussions is that limiting the crisis to 2008 is, at best, iffy. Your econ textbook, for example, explicitly includes "and beyond" and many of the sources discussed carry the crisis on, at the least through 2009. The chief argument raised against the move in this move discussion (mainly by fred bauder and futuretrillionaire) is the the crisis is still ongoing and that seems better supported than the implication, in the proposed title, that the crisis was limited to 2008. --regentspark (comment) 11:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And your response to points 2-4 is?→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 13:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(2) If I participate in the discussion, I cannot close it. (Please read Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions). Generally, it is up to the participants in the discussion to present their case and for the uninvolved editor to evaluate the case as presented. Since I have no opinion either way, I can't really contribute to the discussion itself. (3) I'm not sure I understand you there (your wording is a tad convoluted). Generally, consensus is determined by evaluating arguments not by counting votes. In this case, as I've said above, the arguments to move were weak and did not, in particular, address the issues raised by fred bauder and futuretrillionaire. (4) I believe I've already answered this question above. --regentspark (comment) 15:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I believe I understand your response to points 1-3. However, I still fail to see where did you address the Google Scholar evidence regarding the use of "finanicial crisis of 2008" as a common name, relative to the current name, preserved by your close by the heavy-handed virtue of the move-protect. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 16:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if I post it here: The first four hits on a google scholar search of "financial crisis of 2008" are

Bank lending during the financial crisis of 2008 ...V Ivashina… - Journal of Financial Economics, 2010 ...Cited by 382

Facts and Myths about the Financial Crisis of 2008 ...VV Chari, L Christiano… - Federal Reserve Bank of …, 2008 ...Cited by 100 ...

(BOOK) The financial crisis of 2008 and the developing countries ... WA Naudé… - 2009 - econ.tu.ac.th ...Cited by 72

(BOOK) The new paradigm for financial markets: The credit crisis of 2008 and what it means...G Soros - 2008 - books.google.com ...Cited by 338

These are all authoritative well-cited publications. But there are no exact hits for either "2007-2012 global financial crisis" or "2007-2012 financial crisis". This is because nobody who is anybody calls it that. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 16:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be correct that no one else calls it that. But, that may just be because there is no well defined name for this event as yet (i.e., reality has not yet caught up). Also, there are many more sources that appear to not use your preferred title and also refer to the crisis in the present tense. I tried looking but couldn't immediately find it, but someone gave a long list of current references that indicated that the crisis was an ongoing one. The point is that there is no clear indication (actually a lot less) from the sources as to what to call the article. In which case, the default action is pretty much whatever the status quo is. --regentspark (comment) 16:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Found it. User Xaliqen's list. --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The facts you cite in your response to point 4 are common knowledge. In particular, I believe each of the 12 participants of the debate was completely aware that they are indeed true. Yet 10 out of 12 regraded that the body of evidence suggest we should change the name to Global financial crisis of 2008. You, however considered your personal judgment superior. Could you comment on that, and relate it to the statement you made in the discussion section of your request for adminship? In particular, and I quote:

I believe that the opinions of others, properly cited and referenced, carry as much weight, if not more, than mine (also properly grounded in WP:RS) do.

— Regent's Park (Boating Lake), Requests for adminship, 27 January 2009

→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 17:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. I assume you now understand my rationale and that's good. --regentspark (comment) 18:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You assume false. Would you care to explain your rationale, as it relates to that quote? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 18:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv256, in this case there are multiple reliable sources that say different things. And, this is not a question of my opinions, I'm just reading the sources provided by participants in the discussions. I'd love to write a thesis that connects your extract from my RfA to the decision on this particular RM but that is not the point at issue here. I've explained my rationale for the close. I'll try to explain it in simpler words for you: "There is sufficient evidence provided by discussion participants that the crisis went beyond 2008. At least as far as 2009 if not to the present day. There is no consensus in the literature, none evidenced in the discussion that is, as to what to call this particular crisis. Therefore the article stays where it is with a 'no consensus' decision." --regentspark (comment) 18:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As I consider the primary issue your overstep of the adminship role, and the fate of the "financial crisis" page only a secondary one, I suggest we continue this discussion in dispute resolution. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 18:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's perfect. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 21:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the procedure, just guessing really that it may be appropriate, what is the next step? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am also kind of exhausted by this and would like a break from dealing with it. Would you mind if I let it sit for a while before taking it there, and perhaps have some time to rethink my position? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 22:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sitting down and thinking about things is never a bad idea. In my experience (if you don't mind my 'advising' you), getting overly involved with any particular issue on Wikipedia is not good. Things often don't work out the way you think they should and the process can be very frustrating. Best, always, to keep some distance. However, if you do feel that my RM close was improper, the correct venue is WP:RM/R. Before posting there, you need to attempt to resolve the issue with the closing admin which you have already done so that's not a problem at all. Just remember to post a note here as well as on the article talk page stating that you've requested a move review. --regentspark (comment) 23:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and no, I do not mind you advising me one bit. A new editor needs all the help he can get, and information has non-negative value by definition. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Rethinking done. This matter is closed as far as I am concerned. You may take it off your talk page if you prefer. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 22:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just plain gob-smacked by this!

The above looks a bit convoluted, so perhaps it's best just not to step in it.

But I'm just plain gobsmacked by your closing. Just about everybody is against the current title, the couple who are for it have no basis - there are just no facts supporting the idea of a financial crisis after 2009. Any disagreement about the new title is really just about fine-tuning. Would you consider just sending this on to a different closer. There's nothing personal here or anything like that, I just think you got it absolutely wrong - everybody has a bad day. Smallbones (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't get it. Everyone, including you above and Yani in his latest statement on the article talk page, agrees that the crisis was not confined to 2008. Given that, it makes no sense to use a title that limits the crisis to that year. Am I missing something? --regentspark (comment) 14:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Like many things in life there are no official beginnings or ends to these things. For financial crises you can say that there are "runups," "the main event" and then it "tails off" (my terminology here). Every reliable source would put the "main event" as August through early October 2008, if it chose to divide up the matter. The runup may have begun as early as October 2007. The end of the tail, say March 2009. So I'd be happy with "Financial crisis of October 2007 - March 2009" (except it's too long) "Financial crisis of 2007-2009" (which allows the greatest scope) or "Financial crisis of 2008". Choosing between them is just a matter of judgement, which should be (and was) decided by consensus. Choice of whether to use "Global" or not is similar - almost all financial crises have been global since at least 1900, so it seems redundant to use it - but it's simply a matter of judgement. do we want to stress the global aspect or not? A minor point that was decided by consensus.

What's not a matter of serious debate is that the financial crisis ended before 2010. There's no source in the article that says that the financial crisis extended after 2009. As far as I know there's no reliable source anywhere that says this. I've issued an open challenge on the talk page for a long time now asking people to come up with such a source. BTW, can you find a reliable source that says the financial crisis extended past 2009? Of course not!

So our title extending the financial crisis to 2012, at this point, is just intentionally misleading our readers. We know that it is not true. It has to be changed.

So please just change the title in line with the consensus, or if you can't bring yourself to do that, just pass it along to a trusted colleague asking for a second opinion. Smallbones (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

• Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

• News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

• Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

• Featured content: On the road again

• Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

• WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

• Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

I've been hounded by Darkness Shines at the Haqqani network article, where he reverted me and is adding false information. Please look into it. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That article has been on my watchlist for ages, stop accusing me of hounding you all the fucking time. Anyone ca nlook at your recent contribution history[9] Apart from India and SST This is the first article we have interacted on in your last 500 edits. Where is the hounding? Your constant accusations and blockshopping are getting on my tits, so stop it. Facts, not fiction (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I also do not appreciate your telling a blatant lie about my editing, I have added no information to that article at all. Did you learn nothing from you last failed attempt at this very accusation on ANI?[10] Facts, not fiction (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we can AGF here and assume that DS is not hounding since this is his area of interest. I looked at the actual edits and I don't think an explicit citation is needed. From the text of the article, it seems reasonably clear that the group is lead by an Afghani family whose leaders have apparently been invited to join the Afghani government. Calling them an Afghan group seems reasonable. --regentspark (comment) 14:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Perhaps you should explain that to the person who seems hell bent on changing the citizenship of the Haqqanis. Mar4d (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, he'll read this :) --regentspark (comment) 15:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have read it, and? Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Also if you are going to get involved in a content dispute you would do well to give a valid reason for removing a tag placed in good faith on an article[11] Were is the rational on this page for that edit? Perhaps yourself and Mar4d would care to use the talk page, try this section which I started to discuss why the article is factually incorrect. Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bún chả

Hi RegentsPark, I'm sorry but with the best will in the world, I believe that Talk:Bún chả should be reopened and relisted. This close is contrary to the "best such sources" and the opinions of those who contributed to the RM. It isn't so much the aspect of apparently rewarding one User for an undiscussed move and gamed redirect lock, it is more that this goes against the current practice on en.wp for diacritics and will only lead to the RM being redone anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, RegentsPark. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Your actions on 2007–2012 global financial crisis

You should really take as step back and look at your actions on 2007–2012 global financial crisis. Based on the voting chart, there was a clear consensus that the old article title was not adequate (10 to 2), and a 10 to 2 vote in favor of an alternative title. I know discussions like this are based on consensus and not vote counts, but it takes some cajones to pretend such a lop-sided vote isn't reflective of a consensus. You seem to think the two dissenters had better arguments, but your job is to interpret consensus not evaluate arguments. Most people provided cogent, reasoned arguments for their votes, which should be interpreted as consensus to move the article. Not only did you ignore this consensus, you closed the discussion. If you had any doubts about the clear consensus, you should have engaged in the discussion, not canned it. Several users have already complained about this to you, and your response is to put the discussion on hold. On hold for what? Worst of all you want us to dumb down our arguments and spoon feed them to you (Talk:2007–2012_global_financial_crisis#RM_on_hold). Apparently, we have to "leave the discussion of economic to academia." Sorry, economic terminology is relevant to this discussion. You can't dismiss it out of hand. The users who oppose the move seem to be confusing terms like "financial crisis" and "recession." Discussion of this is completely relevant and really gets at the disagreement over the article title (and why those in favor of the move have a strong point).

Failing to actually engage in these arguments, you seem to want us to simply provide sourced references using terminology. This is hard to do with recent events when no strong consensus has arisen on defining and naming recent events. Yet, unless we delete the article and wait ten years to cover the topic, we have to use some title. You can't demand that we provide citations that show a clear, RW consensus for a single term when there is no consensus. Moreover, you need to place the same burden on the current title. And, frankly, the "2007-2012 financial crisis" in the title is ridiculous, and no one has provided the kind of support for this title that you are demanding from us. Without other literature to grab article titles from, we are left with looking at things like the definition of the financial crisis, but you won't let the discussion go there.--Bkwillwm (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bkwillwm and thank you for the rather long comment here. Do note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not for us to debate the meaning of economic terms or interpret economic models, that is why the world has a large body of economists publishing articles in journals and elsewhere, particularly in peer reviewed outlets. None of the debates on our talk pages are whetted for accuracy through a peer review process. What we need to do is to use published sources as a guide for what goes into the encyclopedia. And, that is why I suggested that the discussion focus not on economics but rather on what the scope of the article should be and what published sources say. I hope you understand this because it is very important to do so if you wish to contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia. I urge you, in particular, to look at our policy article no original research for further information. Warm regards. --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the cordial tone of your reply, but I consider this an extremely rude response. You addressed none of my questions and responded to nothing I said. You're giving me a "Hi, new editor, you don't understand Wikipedia" response even though I'm a long established editor. It's very rude to refer a fellow established editor to the WP:NOR policy (How is it even relevant here? FWIW, it's own of the anti-move editors making appeals to GDP data).

I'll lay out what I think is going on here. You consider yourself a neutral party and judged that one side had a better argument so you shutdown the debate. Now you have a bunch of pissed off editors complaining, so you're going to swat them down by citing Wikipedia policies ("It's a discussion not a vote, so I can ignore the vote," "see WP:OR"). You think we're a bunch of non-neutral editors pushing some POV, but really we were engaged in a careful discussion about terminology and most editors were very open to compromise (I think you interpreted this good editing behavior as "a lack of consensus"). You do not seem to understand the issues here, yet made yourself the arbitrator of the discussion. This is why you have everyone riled up.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Just reviewed the article's talk page. I actually came away from it thinking worse of your decision. The move opposers supply very few sources and the ones they do only support that there are continued economic problems (which no one is arguing against), they have zero supporting citations for a 2007-2012 dating. On the other hand, those who want a move have plenty of good sources for a 2008 or a 2007-2009 dating of the financial crisis. Some how our side gets slapped with an OR claim? Also, your justification was that it's better to have a 2007-2012 title to cover all the bases. This wasn't the argument put forth by other users. You weren't a neutral party. You didn't go with a consensus view. You came in and imposed your own view. You need to give up and move the page or recuse yourself from admin duties on this page. --Bkwillwm (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

With apologies, this is absolute nonsense. The move discussion is on hold and I don't see what you're complaining about. If you're accusing me of bad faith in reopening the discussion, then you need to have more faith in Wikipedia. Now, I suggest you either discuss this on ANI or stop posting lengthy diatribes on my talk page. --regentspark (comment) 01:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Now isn't it nice when the opposition goes to the trouble of proving your point? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ain't going to happen. Pride seems to be at stake. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 23:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought it would be better to deal with this outside of ANI. If you prefer to sort it out there, fine. I'm still complaining because the RM has not been reopened, you put it on "hold" without any explanation about what that means (please correct me if it's officially reponed somehow). I also don't think you should be involved as an admin on this article because you are not an impartial party (as per above, which you did not address). I think it would be best if you undid the closing of the RM and participated as an editor.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI is thattaway. You can explain your reasons for why you think I'm an involved party there. --regentspark (comment) 03:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

One more "diatribe" from me. Do you have any idea why we're upset? We put in our time and effort to make cogent arguments and find sources to sort out this matter. Then an admin comes along and says "It seems this way to me, so you're stuck with it guys." We were going through the official Wikipedia consensus process, then you stepped in and made your own decision.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You are wasting your time, Bkwillwm, this has gone so far by now that it is almost time to ask RK to hand over the bit, not just revert. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 18:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything? --regentspark (comment) 19:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

See it now. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 19:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost connectivity. It's now there. I apologize for this but we really don't need to wait for Fred any longer. You need to move that page. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 19:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Favour

Can you please explain to this editor[12] why that edit cannot stand, he seems quite insistent on reverting it in once a day. It violates WP:RS WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE there is a consensus on the talk page that you cannot equate the actions of the rebels with the Pakistani army, yet he persists in reverting this crap in. I know he will not listen to me, perhaps he will listen to you. Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page. --regentspark (comment) 12:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I forgot, it is also a linkvio. Facts, not fiction (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Move review for 2007–2012 global financial crisis

An editor has asked for a Move review of 2007–2012 global financial crisis. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Bkwillwm (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to address the issue of my assuming "bad faith" that you raised at the above discussion. I think it's better suited here. I never thought you acted in bad faith (Although I understand why it would come across that way). I disagree with how you interpreted your role in determining "consensus." In my understanding, admins are not supposed to sit as judges in whats the "best." On top of that, you seem to have not fully understood the discussion (Still at a loss as to why OR applied to our side, but not the other. I think it is because you did not understand what the issue was, not because you were consciously biased.) Finally, you seemed to be making your own argument when you closed the discussion, which makes you a participant in the discussion and goes beyond your role as an admin interpreting consensus. I realize that the last point is subtle--and a reasonable person could disagree in this case, but I think you fell into the role of participant because you did not limit yourself to interpreting consensus.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason I reopened the discussion was primarily to see if there was something I had missed or that I had called consensus incorrectly and it should be fairly obvious that when an admin reopens a discussion - ask yourself, how often does that happen :) - that that must be a genuine attempt to figure things out. I'm not a fan of long perennial move discussions and I was hoping that a short cut would work. Unfortunately, we're never going to see how that would have played out. Once again, I apologize again for any testiness on my part in my responses to you and I do believe, now, that your comments were made in good faith and were not meant to be disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 12:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

• Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary

• News and notes: Core content competition in full swing; Wikinews fork taken offline

• In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia

• Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.

• Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension

• WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Donald Tsang

Can you clarify your stance on the RFC at Donald Tsang?

Specifically, following the RFC, I reworded the following text in the footnote referenced in the lead section:

Tsang was knighted in June 1997 hours before the handover. As he was a Commonwealth citizen (specifically, British Dependent Territories Citizen) at the time, his membership in the Order of the British Empire is substantive and not honorary. A non-honorary recipient of a KBE is entitled to style himself 'Sir' before his name. However, Tsang does not use the title in official capacity as a preference [13],[14].

to this (lead section text in regular font, footnote is small font):

Tsang made a Knight of the British Empire in June 1997 hours before the handover and is entitled to be styled "Sir Donald Tsang" though he does not use either the title "Sir" or the postnominals "KBE" in his capacity as a Hong Kong government official.Tsang was a Commonwealth citizen (specifically, British Dependent Territories Citizen) at the time his honour was conferred, so his membership in the Order of the British Empire is substantive and not honorary. Although an ordinary recipient of a KBE is entitled to style himself 'Sir' before his name, Tsang does not use the title in official capacity[15],[16].

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington then deleted the words "and is entitled to be styled Sir Donald Tsang though he did not use either the title "Sir" or the postnominals "KBE" in his capacity as a Hong Kong government official." on the basis of your decision.

Unlike the stand-alone mention of the title in the lead sentence and infobox, this is an objective and referenced description of Tsang's status regarding the title, with quotations added for further objectivity, rather than a direct use of it perhaps contrary to his personal preferences. I don't see how this could be a potential BLP violation. I basically moved and reworded information that was previously in the footnote to text that is in front of the footnote. Unlike previous usage, this is clearly not a stand-alone mention as it both uses quotation marks and states in the same sentence that he does not use this title. What do you think? --Jiang (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Let me re-read the RfC and get back to you (on the article talk page itself). I have to run some errands in the morning so expect an answer later this afternoon (US east coast time). --regentspark (comment) 12:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Responded on that talk page. Short answer, In my opinion the RfC did not address the kind of wording you've proposed above. --regentspark (comment) 19:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt follow-up and response! --Jiang (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

• News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide

• Recent research: New influence graph visualizations; NPOV and history; 'low-hanging fruit'

• Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?

• Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten

• WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who

• Discussion report: Sidebar and main page alterations; Recent Deaths; Education Program extension

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to work together

Thank you for this edit on India. Some trimming was needed. However I have made slight changes to make the language clearer so as to avoid confusion. Do they look okay? If not let me know and we can reach some sort of a balance there. I hope it is okay. Cheers! Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 14:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine. I've tweaked the language a bit. Do you have the source handy? I'm not sure if "existence" is the right term. If not, I can see if I can get hold of the source.--regentspark (comment) 15:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any of the four sources with me right now, but I will see I can do. By the way, your edit was fine but,

(including [[Islam]], [[Christianity]], and[[Buddhism]])

I think you could add a space between ‘and’ & ‘Buddhism’ Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea :) Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 16:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi regentspark, I need your opinion on this. As you already know, I added two / three images of mountains, cities, etc in India article. I explained most of the my major edits in my edit summaries. I also had added sourced content (which you pruned according to your best judgement, and I subsequently concurred with you), but now all of that is rashly removed due to an unexplained blanket revert performed by Chipmunkdavis and that too without saying anything meaningful in the edit summary. Then when I asked to explain why in the talk page, Fowler&fowler said nothing helpful except for, "that's the way it works here."

There was nothing exceedingly controversial among the things I added. I was reverted again by Fowler&fowler. What is going on? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like CMD reverted your edits because the images were causing a problem. My suggestion is that you propose new images (or replacements) on the talk page and wait for consensus. Images on the India article have been a contentious issue for a while and taking it slow is the only way to go. I briefly took a look at the images you added (hadn't noticed them before) and some of them seem good, so work at it one image at a time. --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, will do. But you should know he removed the well-sourced contents too and on top of that, as a corollary to my conversation with CMD, I would say, it was sort of revealed that (s)he didn't even bother to check the textual changes I brought in, before reverting each one of them in one stroke. I don't know what to call it. I will post the images on talk-page and what about the content. It's doubly hard for me to repeat all this. But I will try and please talk to CMD if you could. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 15:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for help

Due to Magogs opinionated last block I now have to put up with this bull[17][18] All because this guy refuses to use the talk page over a source he does not like, which is an academic one BTW. I brought it to the RSN board here he continues with his attacks[19] I am not the only editor yo have edited the article he is bitching about, and only he has an issue with this one source. Please advise me on how to seal with a guy who point blank refuses[20] to talk? Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the time to look at the edits in detail but have dropped a note at RSN that you're not under a 1RR restriction. --regentspark (comment) 14:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I should like to be able to treat Darkness Shines as a good-faith editor following his having behaved like one. Darkness Shines is the one hunting up extreme-valued statistics and misrepresenting them, Mr. "up to 72%".

Talkback

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Talk:India.
Message added 07:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 07:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I support your comment there. This fowler guy is not behaving up to the standard. Your active involvement is sorely needed. India's society section is implicitly biased against Hinduism and censors the data about others. Please take an active part in the discussion, even if you happened to disagree with me on certain issues. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)