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 Electriccatfish2 (talk | contribs) at 00:38, 11 October 2012 (→‎Long Beach Police Department (New York): re). 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.

Talkback

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Mrt3366's talk page.
Message added 14:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations of images for the cities template

Why did you started this in India article's talk page. This should ideally be done at the template's talk page. --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I started it because people were already proposing images here. But, one reason to keep it here is that the India page is more trafficked. I'll drop a note on the template talk page but do add a note in the discussion section and we can move the entire discussion to the template talk page if that's the consensus. --regentspark (comment) 14:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Anbu here, let's move the discussion to template talk page. As it is, the template is a tentative arrangement. Arguing and voting on both cityscapes and images for econonomy section will create a lot of confusion. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 18:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just leave it here. The template is for transclusion in the India article and that's where the discussion is the most appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 19:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TParis and his actions regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

help

sir, i'd like to being to your attention: [1]. the subject of the article has recently been sentenced, and i have appropriately added a criminal infobox. kindlt review the other editor's edits. also please note some other biased edits from that guy. 117.216.155.149 (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped a note on the editor's talk page and am watching the article. BTW, there is a discrepancy in the sources relating to the number of years in the sentence (one says 28, the other 18). --regentspark (comment) 14:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reuters and indian express both agree on 28, so i think that's the right one. thanks. 117.216.155.149 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

From what I gather he used (TW) to put some quite long edit summaries on the reversion of an article during the course of an edit war. There was no use of rollback. The length of the edit summary just about exceeds the character limit and he used at least one wikilink to relevant policy pages so there was no indirect abuse either. A tendentious editor maybe, but Admins need to be seen to be fair at all times. I respect the Admin. in the case, he recently dealt swiftly with a gratuitous, explicit attack about me. I just think they are wrong in the handling of this particular case. Leaky Caldron 17:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he didn't actually use rollback then I agree that the penalty definitely doesn't fit (even if he had, I'd have warned first). I guess it's resolved adequately anyway. Thanks for the explanation. --regentspark (comment) 17:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Vishwas

Any chance of you taking a look at the history on Talk:Kumar Vishwas? The article has been semi'd due to repeated insertion/reinstatement of fan-like unencyclopedic content, so now the dynamic IP keeps posting the old version as a malformed edit request on the talk page. Obviously, we do not usually semi both an article and its talk page. Is the solution to collapse the pseudo-request and "answer" it? - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a request so I removed it. If the IP does it again, semi-protection of the talk page may be necessary (no point blocking the IP since it isn't static). Let me know.--regentspark (comment) 16:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I think that there is still a procedure for requesting edits even if both article and TP are semi'd, so all would not be lost. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is. Of course, the IP could merely start posting the entire text at WP:RFED - where will that leave us! --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. Persistent or what? - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-ed for one month. Hopefully that'll do the trick. --regentspark (comment) 12:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussion at Talk:Concordia University

Hi RegentsPark, I have some concerns about your close of the requested move of Concordia University. I think the idea that the Quebecois university is the primary topic was under discussion—by page counts, at least, it does not meet the standard of "more likely than all the other topics combined." Thus, your closing statement reads more like an argument than an assessment of consensus from discussion. In fact, the small number of participants in the discussion makes me think a relisting would have been more appropriate. Yes, there have been previous RMs on the topic, but the most recent was over two years ago, and consensus can change. I wanted to try to settle the matter with you before initiating a move review. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JmaJeremy's description of the other Concordia Universities was compelling (the last paragraph in the discussion) and that, along with the stats (that the Montreal entity gets more hits than any other single entity) is fairly conclusive as a primary topic in my mind. Also, do note that there have been no comments for a while, relisting is usually a better move when there are either no reasonable opinions to consider or when the discussion is still ongoing. --regentspark (comment) 16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we have philosophical differences on when a discussion should be relisted, but I think WP:RM supports my interpretation: "If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the closer may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as 'no consensus'." Either of these outcomes seem like a better way to treat that discussion. The main reason that I'm unhappy with your decision is that I provided, I thought, a good chunk of objective information on this article's relative popularity compared to those of similarly titled articles, whereas editors opposed to the move made little to no substantive arguments. I see discussions of enrollment figures (irrelevant), Google Scholar citations (potentially of interest, but no numbers cited), and bare assertions of prominence. JmaJeremy's arguments about moving pages such as Boston, Montreal, and Vancouver into "DAM [sic] pages" suggest a poor grasp of the primary topic concept. I would suggest relisting for another week to allow consensus to develop. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're on the same page as to when a discussion should be relisted (though, perhaps, our differences are on whether this discussion should be relisted!). When there are reasonable opinions to consider, it is possible to determine consensus and that's what I saw. jmajeremy has provided compelling reasons and more than two weeks have passed without anyone providing evidence that his reasoning is based on incorrect assumptions. That's plenty of time in my opinion. --regentspark (comment) 17:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I suppose I didn't really make any responses to JmaJeremy myself, and I shouldn't fault you for that. I hope you'll consider changing the ruling to no consensus, however, which would better leave the door open for a fuller discussion. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --regentspark (comment) 20:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Glad we were able to come to an agreement. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for moving "mixed breed dog" to "mongrel"! Chrisrus (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, FYI

This has come back up at ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Was watching anyway but wasn't not sure (still not) whether I can make substantive comments on this issue, one which appears to be heading towards a tragic end. --regentspark (comment) 15:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

The Ten Dollar Barnstar
For making musical history in this memorable performance of the song, I, Fowler&fowler«Talk», award RegentsPark this barnstar. 22:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gratuitous, I know, but couldn't resist the temptation :) --regentspark (comment) 09:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed it. It lightened the mood. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on RFC

Wikipedia is not a forum, you should know this better than me, admin RegentsPark. I see you. Your mockery on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates are not at all helpful and pertinent to the serious discussion. It might not have been your wish but I feel mildly slighted by your jokes. I, for one, am trying my best to get a clearer sense of community consensus on the value of those templates. You went even further, when I collapsed those irrelevant comments saying "this is not a forum", you reverted me claiming that it's useful. WOW!

Keep it up administrator. You're so admirably executing your responsibilities. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offense meant and apologies if any taken. You have to admit that your refusal to see the writing on the wall does leave you open to some (gentle) ribbing! --regentspark (comment) 15:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I would have got rid of it if you'd asked! (I've collapsed the digression). --regentspark (comment) 15:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your generosity. And, I would have made the collapse boxes shorter if you had asked me too! My beef is not with you, RP and I think you're fairly neutral (there is not sarcasm in there) and reasonable to an acceptable level. Cheers, Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I really shouldn't have made that joke. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. Really, I don't mind frivolous or ribald ripostes or getting ribbed every now and then, provided that it is done on the correct page and doesn't disrupt other processes. You don't need harangues from me hahaha ... and that's not why I came on this page.
  • I humbly wanted you to know what caste system in Hinduism really meant and how deeply it is related to birth-based societal hierarchy and discrimination. As a side note, I am no expert on theology, but the fact that dilettantes have tried to take over the religion, doesn't serve as grounds for suppressing other voices, or does it? Anyways please kindly visit [2], [3], [4] (there are at least 15 - 16 pages filled with scriptural knowledge as well as the perspectives and outlooks of many Hindu sages/scholars/activists as well as indologists), and also for more visit this page [5].
    However, if I sound inherently bogus or "an obsessively tendentious editor", then I beg your pardon in advance. BTW, I am not asking for their inclusion; all I am saying is we ought not to totally gloss over this part.

    P.S. it would be nice if you left this discussion out of Talk:Caste because I want to first discuss the issue with you in parentheses. You are welcome to give me a {{talkback}} if you deem fit. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's better to leave this out of Talk:Caste. A discussion on Hindu theology is beyond the scope of proposals there. Besides, when we talk about caste we are dealing with Hindu society not Hindu religion/theology/thought/philosophy, there is a difference. Indian thought since Vasubandhu was characterized by an increasing dissonance between the material and the spiritual. What sages, ascetics, philosophers said in the middle ages had little influence on the Indian society, which had lost its will to oppose both the invaders and the emergence of the modern day system of jatis. Moreover, the texts quoted in your first reference are dated to centuries BCE. These texts deal only with varna and can't be of much use to our discussion on caste anyway. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 09:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree CK. I said keep it out of talk:caste because, if taken to talk:caste, it is more than likely to cause another time-killing, pointless and spiral imbroglio. It will, more importantly, be seen as an excuse to drone and obfuscate the issue further. Having said that, only mentioning the failures of a society/culture and nothing about the present day scenario or the achievements is not how we should work here. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little busy today so apologies in advance for the short response. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say above. That caste is an integral part of Hinduism as it is practiced is not really an issue. I'm not sure what theology has to do with that. The problem with the article now is that it tries to underplay the Hindu nature of caste and that creates all sorts of problems. It makes it harder, for example, to discuss the recent gains in reducing caste-based discrimination in India. It also makes it harder to talk about caste based politics, the demands for quotas, all that sort of thing. Caste based discrimination in India is no longer as simple and straightforward as it was in Mulk Raj Anand's days (though that sort of discrimination is still rampant) because everyone in India, whatever their background, has become savvy about advocacy for their group. The article should be about caste in Hinduism, the competing theories of its origins, the reality of its existence in everyday life, the discrimination that it results in, the progress made in reducing that discrimination since 1947, and the rise of advocacy amongst the "lower" castes. Then, an additional section that deals with parallels that have been drawn between the Hindu caste system and other social divisions amongst other peoples is warranted. --regentspark (comment) 14:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It makes it harder, for example, to discuss the recent gains in reducing caste-based discrimination in India. It also makes it harder to talk about caste based politics, the demands for quotas, all that sort of thing." —— I don't necessarily disagree with the statement. You do have a point. I think, that is my point also to some extent, if not wholly. Yes, I admit, the nature of discrimination has changed drastically. The real caste system is reduced to a psychological discernment with not much practical impact or significance today. We should not forget that there is a sort of reverse discrimination against the so-called "higher caste" today (references:
  1. Devanesan Nesiah. Discrimination With Reason? The Policy of Reservations in the United States, India and Malaysia. 1997. Oxford University Press.
  2. Excess reservation will cause reverse discrimination, cautions Supreme Court and more)
We, if neutral about this, should not neglect to mention the following things:
  1. All sorts of initiatives (e.g. reservation et al) that Indian Government have taken up to abolish the discrimination based on caste. And the abuses of those laws.
  2. The initiatives Hindu Leaders/Activists have taken to reform the system.
  3. The progress (e.g. modern status) so far in bringing equality.
  4. The last but not the least, reverse discrimination in present-day India juxtaposed with Politics behind it.
I hope I am clear now. Thank you. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better to discuss this on Talk:Caste. I can see that you're worried about the way the discussion will go but 'at topic' discussions are always better. We can decide things here but none of that will fly if there isn't consensus on the article talk page. Bear in mind that all editors approach these discussions in good faith, even when their views are not the same as yours, and consensus has to come out of these different views (properly grounded in reliable sources and appropriately weighted of course!). --regentspark (comment) 12:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

ANI

Since someone has reversed my closing at ANI without providing a basis in policy, could you take a look? I'm not going to revert back myself, as that would be improper, but not sure to which venue I should appeal this to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed again. I see no percentage in arbcom or more drama but let's see. --regentspark (comment) 20:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm pretty confident the close was the right thing to do. I asked an Arb for guidance if it continues, simply because I've never had someone reverse a close like this to even know how to appeal it. I expected controversy and I really do respect that others will disagree or comment and I am quite tolerant of it, but it won't deter me from doing what I think is the right thing in a situation that is less one sided than it was presented. If someone wants to appeal to ArbCom or Jimmy or whatever, I have no problem standing behind the decision I made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Mughal Lohar sock problems

I've left a note at User_talk:Utcursch#Mughal Lohar regarding problems relating to an old sockpuppet. Utcursch is not particularly active at the moment, although they are making a few edits every few days. If you have any thoughts regarding my query then perhaps you or another admin who sees this might weigh in? - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although you are not mentioned by name, please note that the thread above has now been mentioned at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Primary_source_at_Aurangzeb. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Commented there. --regentspark (comment) 12:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Short (finance) suggestions

Hi RegentsPark, thanks for your edits on Short (finance), the lead looks better now. I've also replied on the Talk page there, but wanted to drop you a note here to ask if you have any thoughts about the change I suggested for the Concept section. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Log

Hi RegentsPark. I'm not sure whether posting this on Sigma's RFA would be a better idea, but I just thought I'd give you a quick message to let you know that those edits are done automatically by Twinkle when you tag a page for deletion.

It's quite a clever little feature of Twinkle that certainly didn't exist back when I was a non-admin, but I came across it a few months ago and thought it was quite good. You can see more about it in the Twinkle preferences, Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences#twinkle-config-section-6, specifically the description states Since non-admins do not have access to their deleted contributions, the userspace log offers a good way to keep track of all pages you nominate for CSD using Twinkle. Files tagged using DI are also added to this log. I'll leave Sigma to answer the rest of the question you posed, but I hope this clears this up, I would certainly be puzzled if someone was manually spending time maintaining that log! Thehelpfulone 01:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I don't know a great deal about automated edits! It was puzzling me and that does clear it up. --regentspark (comment) 02:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Welling

Is Pooja Welling really a GA, as the article topicon says? It looks to me like a hoax. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the above. I suddenly realised what had happened and am fixing. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If it hasn't already been prod-ed, it should be. --regentspark (comment) 12:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I genuinely appreciate the mild-mannered and effective way in which you put forward you concerns. I wasn't looking for a prolonged fight any more than I was seeking a way out and I would not have given in to further bullying, but that's my stubborn nature, I suppose. Anyway, I appreciate your involvement. Leaky Caldron 15:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I can see where you're coming from but these things have a nasty way of getting out of control! --regentspark (comment) 16:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

BRD

"Like I say above, I don't see any need for action against Kauffner. Rather, it is the other editor who needs to be reminded about BRD and about proposing page moves individually. If you believe that IIO needs to be sanctioned somehow then that's a different matter and, since I don't follow the diacritic battles, I can't really comment on that without further evidence. regentspark (comment) 22:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC) "

Hi, I post this here because I can see you are clearly acting/speaking in good faith. I admit when you supported Kauffner counter majority in the 3-1 on the Talk:Bun cha RM I was scratching my head about how an admin would uphold a move which had been accomplished by disruption of BRD, i.e. by edit-locking the redirect, BOLD-LOCK-. Now I see that you were unaware that BRD had been deliberately circumvented, which explains better your close. Perhaps you might wish to check the archives and refer to previous ANI (or was it Arbcom?) ruling on the Dolovis case of disruption of BRD and perhaps compare the 100s of Dolovis redirect edits with the 100s of Kauffner redirect edits and then adjust your statement related to BRD. (also FYI group page RMs have been specifically requested by several admins in this area). Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I have a hazy memory of that one. Looking at the RM discussion, I can see that my close was based on usage in English language sources which was based on the evidence given by Kauffner (and not refuted on the move request). Still seems reasonable to me. I'm personally not hidebound either way on diacritics, they should be used when English language sources use them, not used when English language sources don't use them, and we should defer to local usage when English language sources are not in agreement. But, I'm not really aware of the history between you and Kauffner so let's see what the ANI report brings out. regentspark (comment) 01:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, that's okay, closing admins will sometimes go against the supports on the RM, I accept that. Though I'm not quite sure what you mean that evidence was "not refuted" since AjaxSmack posted physical scans of Amazon LOOK from an English language cookbook showing that cookbooks enabled to use Vietnamese fonts do spell this with Vietnamese. Kauffner only provided evidence that sources which aren't enabled don't - but on that logic even François Mitterand would have his name anglicised, see Talk:François_Mitterrand#Requested_move. Normally citing a majority of diacritic-disabled sources is not how these RMs are decided, so AjaxSmack's refutation was well within the frame of normal RM activity in this area. That's just FYI, it's irrelevant now, and I'm not making an issue of the RM close; the issue is the BRD lock.
Do you mind if I ask, have you ever encountered a BRD lock of this sort before? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that that is a disingenuous way of preventing non-admins from reversing a move. If there is a pattern of doing this then we do have a problem. regentspark (comment) 13:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long Beach Police Department (New York)

Hi! Riley Huntley (talk · contribs), Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs), and myself are in a content dispute as to whether Long Beach Police Department (New York) meets the B-class standards. You've listed yourself as a Wikipedian available to provide a third opinion, so can you please advise us if it meets the B-class standards or not? Thank you. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Technically, you have already received a third opinion but if you want another opinion, I am fine with that. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should really post this on WP:3O or, better still, on WP:DRN since there are three editors involved. I don't have the time to look at it today but, generally, if an editor removes a B class tag from the article it is in incumbent on that editor to explain why. Not sure if that's been done here. --regentspark (comment) 23:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look and, cursorily, I'd say it likely isn't yet a B. Though the bar is fairly low for a B-class article, the content in this article is fairly sketchy and needs to be further fleshed out (for example, with a 101 year history we'd expect something interesting must have happened sometime(!), and there are a few references missing. Perhaps that is the way it is with this police department but that's my, admittedly cursory, impression. --regentspark (comment) 00:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. It's a fairly small department and there's not much about it online. I've always wanted to take an article to GA, but I guess this won't make it, so I'll work with another article (either a larger law enforcement agency, Electric catfish, or Defibrillator.) Anyways, I'll fix up some issues to make it decent, and then I'll get started on another one. I didn't want to take it to DRN because I'm an active volunteer there and the bot will mark the thread as if I was the editor mediating it. Thank you very much. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark&oldid=517102560"