Jump to content

User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

See my Comments

See my comments here, I propose a rename of the article. Thanks --Sikh-History 20:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Replied on the article talk page. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

New WikiProject Novels initiative

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for taking the lead on reviving that project!--RegentsPark (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Wamalwa Kijana

You appear to have closed the requested move of this page as "moved" without actually doing any move. As both pages have history this needs an admin to sort out so I can't simply do the move myself. Dpmuk (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw that but can't do the history merge till later tonight. Will get to it. --rgpk (comment) 19:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Roll bender move

Hi, You say it should be re-submitted after its re-written, but I already did re-write it at User:Wizard191/Sandbox1. As such, it should have been moved; otherwise your request is inaccurate. Wizard191 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comment here appears to imply that the article is still about the device rather than the process. Given the content of the move discussion, I suggest that you finish rewriting the article first and then request a move. Shouldn't be a problem at that time. --rgpk (comment) 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The re-written article is about both. The content is similar, however it is written to address the process first and the equipment second. If what you meant was to have me resubmit for a after it has been expanded with more process content, then that was unclear by your closing comment. Wizard191 (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
According to Kotinski's comment, the rewritten article is also mostly about the device and I closed as not moved primarily on the basis of that comment. If you think my reading is wrong, I'll undo the closure and let someone else close it. Let me know. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 21:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No, we can leave it closed, because I'm going to guess someone else will probably agree with your conclusion. I just wanted to know exactly what I needed to do for the next time I propose the move. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Comments Re: Jatt Sikh

Hi Fellow editor. Please add you comments here. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Flag of Tibet 3O

Hullo, happy new year! Just to let you know, I've extended the full protection on this for another week, just while you're working on the response. Obviously, when you're done, edit through it and remove it, or leave it up so that people can comment without the edit war firing up again. I didn't realise rgpk was you in the sig till I came here! GedUK  14:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I'm working on an identity change! Sorry about the flag of tibet delay. RL has been rearing its ugly head and I've had no time for the virtual world. But things are calming down so I'll get to it over the next couple of days. Thanks for extending the protection.--rgpk (comment) 14:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No rush from me, was requested on my talk page to extend as it's not quite ready yet. Take your time :) GedUK  15:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Comment on my talk page now deleted?

Hi, RegentsPark, apparently for user privacy reasons, some comments that were posted to my talk page were deleted before I had a chance to read them. If you had something to say to me that you want to make sure I read, feel free to contact me off-wiki (email is enabled on my user account), and I will take into account what you said. Or perhaps you can repost on my talk page if that does not implicate any privacy concerns. All the best, -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That's odd. I see no privacy concerns whatsoever in those comments. I wonder why AGK used revdel to remove them. Anyway, all I said was that writing a letter to the economist and then using that to initiate a discussion on Jimbo Wales page is disingenuous on the part of Captain Occam. --rgpk (comment) 01:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I’m fairly certain that the reason the page revisions were deleted is because two of the comments there were personal attacks from Slrubenstein using part of my real name, and bringing up off-Wiki information about me (from my blog) that I’ve never voluntarily disclosed here. (I say “voluntarily” because Mathsci has brought it up on-Wiki against my consent in the past, which was one of the things that led to his topic ban in the R&I case.) The real privacy issue was the content of my blog, although the personal attacks also were problematic regardless of whether he referred to me by my real name or my Wikipedia alias. I don’t think your comments were violating any policies, RegentsPark, but when RevDel is being used for comments it’s generally necessary to delete all of the page revisions containing the comments, which in this case included the page revision where your own comment was added.
I think it’s interesting, and more than a little ironic, how well this situation demonstrates the point that I made in my letter and that Sandstein made in his ArbCom application. We had one sysop (Slrubenstein) who was making personal attacks against an editor whom he dislikes, and another sysop (you) who didn’t appear to care, since you replied to them in an uncritical manner. It took a third sysop, AGK, to recognize that there was anything wrong with the comments. If I had said the exact same thing about Slrubenstein that he was saying about me, on the other hand, I’m sure you would’ve either warned me yourself or reported me at AN/I or AE. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Captain Occam, since you've disclosed your identity on-wiki by linking to the letter in the economist, I really don't see any privacy concerns here. Personally, I would not use your real life name on-wiki but there is no policy prescription against doing that and revdel should only be used if an editor is outed, which is not the case here. However, I don't see the big deal either way so let's just let this go. (I'm afraid I can't recall what sirubenstein wrote so can't comment on your last statement - except that I haven't yet ever reported anyone to ANI and have no intention of making a start there!) Regards. --rgpk (comment) 14:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Continuing to repeat claims, misinterpretations and misrepresentations made during WP:ARBR&I, but not accepted by ArbCom itself, seems the least likely way of having ArbCom sanctions lifted. Similarly claims of unfair treatment and victimisation. Captain Occam was instrumental in starting the ArbCom case, which he did with great enthusiasm and application. It is regrettable that he does not seem so far to have come to terms with the consequences of those actions. Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Your claim that I’m a holocaust denier was referencing an old blog entry of mine from before I’d become active at Wikipedia, and this was the only example of a personal attack from you that ArbCom specifically described in your finding of fact, rather than just linking to the diff. You’ve also forgotten that the ArbCom case was requested by Rvcx, and when he asked me about the possibility of arbitration here, I made it clear that I didn’t really want it. The attitude I expressed there about his requesting arbitration was enthusiasm? Really?
What you need to understand about this now, Mathsci, is that the problem pointed out in my letter has now been acknowledged by a large enough group of people that it’s highly unlikely something isn’t going to be done about it. Even Jimbo Wales has recognized the existence of the problem, in this comment. Enough other people have gotten involved in this issue that even if I were to have nothing to do with it anymore, something would still probably end up being done about it, although the solution may end up being quite a bit different from what I originally proposed to Jimbo. (Which is fine with me.) It’s completely to be expected that you’ll be resistant to this change, since the lack of balance the way things currently are is something you’ve benefited from, but eventually you’ll need to accept that this benefit probably isn’t something you’ll continue having indefinitely. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have forwarded these comments to ArbCom. Since you seem to be criticizing ArbCom, I will leave it up to them what should be done about this. Many of your recent discussions seem to be some form of attempt by you to reopen or re-examine the evidence of the ArbCom case. That doesn't seem like a good idea at all and I am completely apposed to such discussions, even if now there is the benefit of hindsight and further information not available then. The whole idea was to move on. Mathsci (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Zuggernaut

Not sure what Zuggernaut is up to. See British raj and Presidencies and provinces of British India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut has a single track mind and has been 'looking for consensus' on famines since this edit five months ago. Apparently, the lack of consensus, or even support, for his edits does not stop him from claiming consensus [1], [2], etc. etc. so I'm not surprised by these new edits. Is it possible there is an old pattern being repeated here? --rgpk (comment) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll have to mull that over. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
RegentsPark - You are attacking me instead of my content and that's a personal attack per WP:PA. I am asking that your remove it. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Zuggernaut, could you please specify what the 'attack' was or how it is you were being 'attacked'? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

RM close of Oona King

The RM of Oona king as linked here was recently closed by yourself. You did though not post the result and give your resons for coming to that decision based on the discussions dirung the RM. Could you please post the result of the RM andgive your reasons for coming to that decision. Many thanks Lucy-marie (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

added. --rgpk (comment) 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for a response

While I am not yet calling it a campaign, I see recurring occurrences of behavioral problems like personal attacks and a failure of AGF towards me. I am requesting you yet again to please respond to my earlier request. I am generally not of a disposition to spend time at places like ANI but I will be forced to if I am unable to elicit a response from you here. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could specify what personal attacks you are seeing. I'm particularly interested in your interpretation of "recurring occurrences of behavioral problems". General statements are of no particular help because, obviously, if I thought that something I said was an attack on you personally I would not do say it. Thanks (and please only respond in specifics because I have only limited time available for wikipedia these days). --rgpk (comment) 19:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not have a single track mind and it is unfair of you to attack my person and say that I have a single track mind. I am asking that you apologize for saying so. Earlier your behavior at Talk:Ganga was inappropriate when you took off the {{Indian English}} template. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Zuggernaut, could you please provide diffs of what you are talking about? I don't see where RegentsPark has attacked you or where he took off the template or how it was inappropriate. Frankly, these accusations are becoming disruptive because you are not justifying them with evidence (that is, diffs of what it is you are describing). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes Zuggernaut. Could you please respond to Ncmvocalist's questions? I'm not sure how removing a template can be perceived as disruptive (feel free to link to the relevant policy page that says it is). Regards. --rgpk (comment) 15:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
BTW, since you're offended by the use of the expression 'single track mind', perhaps I should explain that it merely signifies what I think is your obsession with ensuring that wikipedia presents the British experience in India in a negative way. It is purely a rhetorical expression and it should be obvious that that opinion is restricted to this aspect of your wikipedia activities rather than your mind in general (which I assume runs on multiple tracks). Is that explanation enough or would you prefer I replace it with "is obsessed with casting the British Indian experience in a negative light"? Despite my misgivings about the way you approach editing here, I have no particular desire to upset you so I'm happy to make the change. Let me know. --rgpk (comment) 16:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You are only attacking me further by suggesting I am 'obssessive'. This is now at ANI. Zuggernaut (talk)

Please add any..

...observation you may have here. Thanks--SH 19:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have added a comment there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Sam

This is the Uncle_Sam page for reference. Please correct your mistake in User_talk:Christopher_Monsanto. 79.107.200.227 (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway I changed the title although it wasn't harassment and rewrote the part you deleted. 79.107.200.227 (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Repost of Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)

A tag has been placed on Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hang on}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about this. Sorry! --rgpk (comment) 23:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks

he is just throwing around insults. roughly translated to that Prime Minister is thanking the president for reverting and Media will come and cover. --CarTick (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I just saw this discussion. When editors begin to think that removing western bias from wikipedia gives us carte blanche to add unsourced information (a bit patronizing that, IMO), I'm close to giving up on wikipedia. --rgpk (comment) 21:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Please Peer Review Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

If you find some time, can you peer review Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. R.Sivanesh ✆ 08:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to but have no time these days. Sorry! --rgpk (comment) 14:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Narendra Modi, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ashlonerider (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Hi Regents Park,

I greatly appreciated your comments at my recent RfA. Your reasons for support were quoted by other supporters and you engaged with the objections of opposers. Our lack of interaction before this RfA makes your confidence in me all the more meaningful.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sometimes I just have to shake my head in wonder over oppose !votes! Happy editing to you too. --rgpk (comment) 22:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

chosen one :P

Hey, Talk:India is a nice playground for a

  1. a particular British Empire apologist
  2. a particular famine theorist
  3. a wrong page "discussionist" (n00b)

Clear the air there... as you have in the past! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.204.50 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Hello. edit conflict with the short frenchman, so I paste it here instead

Emperor Norton is here to remain us of the cultural impact of the Napoleonic (n.b., not "bonapartist") era.

If you think it's better to insert it in the discussion page, let me know. Cheers. walk victor falk talk 18:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Go ahead and shove it in. I'm still reading. --rgpk (comment) 19:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary decision to move "Napoleon I" to "Napoleon"

I strongly believe that, in moving "Napoleon I" to "Napoleon" as you just did, you have used your administrator privileges in a way that can only be described as arbitrary. As you might have noticed, the discussion wasn't even about moving the article to "Napoleon". That suggested move to "Napoleon" has been rejected weeks ago and the opposition to this move was much more considerable than the support for it. The topic of the latest discussion was its requested move to "Napoleon Bonaparte", for which there seems to be more support and a stronger case. Despite this, as you can very well see, there is some very strong, academically-backed case against such a move and for maintaining the article under the name "Napoleon I". I, for one, as a contributor, cannot and will not accept a discretionary act, in which an administrator makes a decision without even bothering to present the rationale behind it. Best regards, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, Alexandru, did you even read RegentsPark's decision? Much of what you say here was addressed in his bold but well-reasoned decision, and this response seems to indicate you did not read it. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for my rash comment, I couldn't find the justification until you posted the link to it. I do withdraw my obviously erroneous statement that no rationale has been provided and thus that the decision has been arbitrary. I still believe, though that it was the wrong decision. Best regards,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
No apologies necessary. Differences in opinion are what make our articles better. --rgpk (comment) 00:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon

I wish to commend you on your bold but well-reasoned decision at Talk:Napoleon#Move_to_Napoleon_Bonaparte. Brace yourself, for the objections have already started (though they, predictably, make no mention of the substance of your clear and elegant justification). I wish more closing administrators would put the thought and effort into their decisions that you obviously put into this one. Outstanding. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks. I agonized over this one but believe that I correctly read consensus and policy. (I should start thinking about that vacation though!) --rgpk (comment) 00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping

There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash have a chat 00:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Already commented. Feel free to comment on my comment here. --rgpk (comment) 00:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dera Sacha Sauda

Both it and Ram Rahim Singh have been getting edit-warred over for about a week. I've tried to do some neutral editing to at least clean the latter up a bit, but it's been difficult. I think Bandagharka (talk · contribs) has been inserting more POV and slanted information, but I'm not an expert on the subject matter. I tried opening up the talk page for some discussion, but no luck so far. I'm pretty sure there will be a reversion of at least some of my changes on Ram Rahim Singh again. Maybe just watch them for now, because protecting them now would definitely be the wrong version, but it always is, of course. —Torchiest talkedits 20:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

You've got email from Fowler&fowler

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

India v South Asia ANI

This is to notify you (as you are a participant in the above ANI) that I've made several restriction proposals at this discussion which you may wish to comment on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

List of South Asian inventions and discoveries

Could you tell about due procedure that should be taken to have the article deleted? Personally I think a redirect solves all but this has to be done as close to the book as possible.

If you choose to reply then please do so either here or on Talk: List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Odd but necessary request since I don't have a talk page at the moment.

Thanks in advance,

115.240.80.76 (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, ideally an uninvolved admin should just delete it. Of course, if someone closes the requested move as 'no consensus' or 'not moved', then any admin can delete the article. --rgpk (comment) 15:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

India at FAR

India is now at FAR. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

G4 article hosted in userspace

As you've salted David Alexander (author), do you think there is there any reason to continue hosting the promotional article in userspace? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Uncertain. I'll leave it to you to figure that out. --rgpk (comment) 16:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Lucky me! My inclination is to toast it. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment page should now be moved to WWE

http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2011/2011_04_07.html Zanwifi (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You'll have to start a WP:RM. —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. An RM is definitely the way to go on this. --rgpk (comment) 23:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Gandzasar Monastery

Hi. You fully-protected wrong version of this article. Can you please revert the last revertion and then apply page-protection in here? Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I know. See WP:WRONGVERSION. --rgpk (comment) 17:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
In the case you know that you protected wrong version, can you please revert it back and apply page-protection again? If not, I am afraid that all discussion that currently is going on talk page of the article will be just useless. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you please pay attention to here? Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Protected. --rgpk (comment) 01:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you again protected wrong version. --Verman1 (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw your name pop up twice as the protecting admin while checking the background of an Arbitration enforcement discussion related to the above. If you have any particular insight here, your comments would be welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize it had gone that far. No particular insight into the editor, unfortunately. --rgpk (comment) 17:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Lifting_the_Indian_history_topic_ban 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, Zuggernaut (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'll take a look later this morning and see if it needs any comment from me. --rgpk (comment) 10:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Advice to ignore editors comments

On 5th April on COI you stated that editors should ignore Blackash when she makes comments on the discussion page. I find this advice rude and and not at all helpful in the light of the present situation where she has been topic banned for no difinitive reason. If an editor is called to justify their edits, aren't they obligated to reply. My take on your advice is that I can edit and dont have to explain why. This gells with Colincbn, Martin, Duff, and Griseums' behaviour where they barely answer or dont answer questions regarding their edits. Their favourite tactics are to attack the questioning editor with questions like "who are you? or change discussions or talk about an editors' behaviour. It has been noted on the talk page that these editors are hostile to editors with a different point of view. They also fill the page with rhetoric. In short is your advice in this instant really what you want other editors to listen too? Does this advice comply with Wiki policy?Sydney Bluegum (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No one is required to respond to talk page comments made by other editors. If you believe that he/she is making useful comments, feel free to build on them and modify the article page appropriately (which will force a response from the other editors). I assume that the article page ban didn't extend to you? --rgpk (comment) 13:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The World Wrestling Entertainment page Clearly needs to be moved

my request move has already been placed and here is all the supports Talk:World_Wrestling_Entertainment#Requested_move Zanwifi (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

done. --rgpk (comment) 23:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit war on Andhra

Hi, since you asked me to report if the revert continues, I had reported the same on Ohnoitsjamie's talk page. Please see if the page needs to be edit protected to prevent further reverts by User:Nagarjuna198. Thanks, —Abhishek Talk to me 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I see Nagarjuna89 was warned by Ohnoitsjamie at 10:30 am. If he/she reverts even once now, he or she will be blocked. --rgpk (comment) 18:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is it

Would you kindly share diff for thisYogesh Khandke (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

See the bottom of this page (motion 2). --rgpk (comment) 18:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
See reply on YM's page please. Thanks.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Commented there. I know you've had issues with YM but I think it is time for all of us to move forward. --rgpk (comment) 16:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussions surrounding your message to YellowMonkey

Moved from YellowMonkey's talkpage

Echo all the sentiments above. From reading the arb case it does appear that the case was declined (motion 2). So, as far as I can see, there are no bars against your just coming back and editing away as usual. Some editors prefer that your RfC torture should continue but I suspect, and hope, that wiser counsels will prevail if you do decide to come back. If you can indicate your interest in returning in some way, that would help in figuring out how to make it happen. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 00:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

RegentsPark:It is very saddening that you are making the above allusive comments. it is painful that you call a section of editors unwise and that their intention is to torture YM. YM has voluntarily stopped editing. This may be unrelated to the RfC etc, your stand is highly anamolous in this particular case, I am sure YM understands that he isn't blocked or banned, so your comment you have no bars, is a little suprising. The motion is declined as YM has not edited since 24 November 2010 (six days before the arbitration request was filed) and has not yet been afforded the opportunity to address the new issues raised in the request for comment or in this arbitration, it means to me that ArbCom declined to deal with the issue ex parte. Please correct this interpretation if I am wrong. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
YK, no allusions were intended. The RfC, any RfC, is fairly obviously a less than pleasant process - deserved or undeserved. To me it seems fairly clear that arbcom has declined the case, whether YM returns or not. Clearly, however, all this is moot unless he decides to return and hence my post asking him to let us know. If he does want to return, then we can clarify the conditions of his return. Otherwise, all this is a waste of time. --rgpk (comment) 01:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
YK, I find the continuing unnecessary haunting of this talk page by you "painful" and "saddening", not to mention pointless and divisive. Whether you like it or not, some of us feel that YM was a wonderful contributor to this project and that our treatment of him has been shabby and quite frankly punitive. Certainly, what happened to YM has been cautionary - the lesson being "don't take on the nationalist POV-pushers because they don't give a stuff if they drag this encyclopedia into the ground so long they get their way". Don't worry, I have certainly taken this lesson to heart. The outcome of the (continuing!) campaign against YM is a diminished encyclopedia. Congratulations. -- Mattinbgn (talk)
It is made quite clear in the policy WP:ADMINACCT and the Arbcom statement that some form of discussion will be required on YellowMonkey's return. There is no reason such a discussion needs to be a painful exercise. A large part of that discussion will be to enable to community to help YellowMonkey. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
How will it help him? All it will do is help those who want to see him hang even without him being here to defend himself (and why should he when all sorts of crap is being flung at him). Nationalist POV warriors have won and are killing encyclopedia which had potential to become a very good resource. Bidgee (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
who wants to see him hang? Who who has commented here is a nationalist POV pusher? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You know who they are, I'm not taking the "bait". Bidgee (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
No actually I don't. I don't believe anyone who has discussed the matter here wishes to see him hang or is a nationalist POV pusher. I believe you are simply mistaken.
If I am wrong (which is perfectly possible) then if evidence is presented that some people wish to just bash yellowmonkey and aren't acting in good faith then per policy it would be acceptable to avoid any discussion upon yellowmonkeys return. Or those people could be excluded from any such discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
'Matin: Haunting isn't a word I would use to describe an editor's edits on a page, I have not been banned from this page. RegentsPark has made a statement, I provided a clarification, another editor removed both the statements, RegentsPark put his back, I put mine back. Please point out the reason for offense and I will issue an apology, if warranted.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What is this achieving? Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

at the very least clarifying whether these POV pushers exist and who they are which should enable us to move forward productively when YellowMonkey does return. I for one wouldn't want to return to this situation and I don't think him returning will suddenly resolve the reasons why we are having this drama-ful discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Folks, this is a complete waste of time. My only reason for putting this back was to let YM know that if he wants to come back, he should let us know somehow so that we can figure out how to make it happen or whether it is worth his while coming back or not. Clarity is, after all, an important prerequisite for most actions in life. None of this matters if he doesn't want to come back so let's all just give it a rest until he lets us know. --rgpk (comment) 13:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Fowler

I have requested user:Fowler&fowler to refrain from using insults and abuses. You are active on the pages where these were issued, namely India and Ganges talk pages in the main, and I assume that it is in your knowledge. I took the issue up with him formally requesting him to refrain from insulting me, making three requests. He brushed my request off by declaring Please sue me or alternatively thicken your skin., he further insults me by writing a summary enough with the persistent and pushy sloppiness [3]. I believe that the talk page guidelines like avoid personal attacks are not for decoration, also wp:Etiquette allows an editor to explain the boundaries of his comfort. Fowler has refused to discuss the issue, therefore as administrator I request you to take action in the matter, please recall that interaction with Fowler has resulted in an editor being banned and you played a supporting part in the consensus, Fowler too has taunted me using the issue. Please take necessary action or suggest course.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

An editor has claimed Fowler's doctoring of search terms. Please take action about the same too.

[4]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh, you need to assume good faith on the part of fowler. He is an acerbic person but produces good text, good sources, and can be relied upon not to play games. I had a hard time finding the search referenced above but it is clear that Fowler is looking to remove references to extraneous hits. Ganga, as you know, is also used as a name. Darren Ganga, for example, is a well known West Indian cricketer. If you search for 'Ganga' alone, you're going to find many results that are connected with one of the many people named Ganga. Fowler is just trying to remove that bias from the results, as well we all should be doing. On your part, I suggest working with fowler rather than against him. Wikipedia would greatly benefit by cooperation between the two of you. --rgpk (comment) 20:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I am taking the necessary steps regarding dispute resolution, (1)I have tried with Fowler man-man, he has brushed me off. (2)Even though I have had issues with you, I have approached you, as an informal arbitrator, to look at the matter, it demonstrates my ability to assume good faith. (3)You may be right about the search terms and Fowler's modus operandi, you may be wrong. It is just one example. I had hoped you would understand the issue, which is of abuse of talk pages, and abuse of editors, Wikipedia is not a blog or a chat room, we are engaged in building an encyclopaedia for the future, I wish you have another look at wp:Etiquette. (4)He has already provoked an editor into being banned, he has taunted me about it, he informs that he is too busy to read. Please take some time over the issue, to contemplate. Say 3 days.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I wonder why you had a hard time with the diff provided. I checked it, and it points correctly.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I meant the actual "ganga -daren -jean etc." search term used by fowler. I had to look up all his search references before I found it. Perhaps I missed some more direct reference in heloworld's post. Let me take a look at fowler's edits. I know he can be acerbic but I don't think he's crossed any lines here. I'll also ping ncmvocalist to take a look, he has a lot more experience with civility issues than I do. (Personally, I tend to ignore negative comments so I'm not a good judge of this sort of thing.) --rgpk (comment) 20:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Is he an admin?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
wp:Etiquette An editor decides what his boundaries are, he informs others about them if he feels they are violated, others should respect them, Fowler was informed, he brushed off by commenting "sue me or grow a thicker skin", perhaps this could be explained to him for compliance.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Taunts about Zuggernaut's ban and pointing the same direction to me.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist is not an admin but has a lot of experience on wikipedia and is good at judging things. Let's see what he says. --rgpk (comment) 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
He too was on the other side of the argument once, (YM). But systems are dynamic. Thanks in advance to him.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I dont know if ncovocalist can be entirey objective. YK and NCM has been on the opposite side before in YellowMonkey's RFC. --CarTick (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt if that's an issue. Ncmvocalist is reasonably objective. Regardless, YK will get some sense of where he stands on all this and can decide what to do next based on that. --rgpk (comment) 21:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Yogesh Khandke, I apologize unequivocally for all words, phrases, or figures of speech that you consider to be insulting or uncharitable. I will now be taking a short leave of absence from editing both the Ganges and Talk:Ganges pages and will, consequently, be out of your hair. You, I hope, will return the favor by not appearing with dispatch on the page I edit next, especially if you have no history of hitherto editing that page. Happy editing. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

YK, I think Ncmvocalist has summarized the situation well (see his talk page comment User_talk:Ncmvocalist#YogeshKhandke_and_Fowler), not only in asking fowler to be more circumspect in his language but also in asking you to go the extra step to work with fowler and other editors. Hopefully we can all move on from here and work on building wikipedia rather than trading insults. Conflicts are a normal and healthy part of collaborative work and while learning how to move beyond them is not easy, learn and move ahead we must. Thank you fowler for the gracious note above. --rgpk (comment) 13:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread has been open at multiple places. I am keeping it here, where I started it.

Fowler:(1)I started with the civility issue because it is bilateral, however it is not the only issue but I would prefer to bring the other ones up bilaterally if you agree, on your talkpage or mine whichever way you prefer. (2)Thank you for your undertaking. However please understand that your solution of not interacting isn't what I had hoped for, for example, you have posted a photograph of a place in my neighbourhood, you know Yogesh is my first name and Khandke my surname, I look forward to interacting with you, you come across as well informed. (3)Please however understand that each editor is allowed to define his comfort zone, I have defined mine, if you have any civility issues with me, please share them with me and I will comply. (4)You haven't so far indicated any civility issue.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist:Zuggernaut and myself have been clubbed together as accomplices, he has taunted me over Zuggernauts ban in which you took a lead (correct me if I am wrong on the lead part), RP as admin was there too with his support, despite all this I have assumed good faith in your judgement on the present issue. Please take your time, I request you to either substantiate or withdraw the allusive comments about me, regarding my behaviour with Fowler, on my part I think I have not initiated a single un-civil argument with Fowler and can demonstrate that I have been extremely restrained in the face of insults. Such insults like rabid bogus garbage pushy, all his attacks have been imo unprovoked. Please do not make hypothetical, allusive statements and allegations. You can take as long as you want, please substantiate the statements or withdraw them by striking them off.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(od) YK, I think ncmvocalist gave a very reasonable summary of the situation and your response above shows that you are unable to internalize the parts of that summary that relate to you. Well meant advice is best taken in the spirit with which it is given but no one can force you to do that. If you find his conclusions unsatisfactory, then I suggest you take this matter elsewhere. However, bear in mind that, rightly or wrongly, you will also become the subject of discussion and you can expect a lot more along the lines of what ncmvocalist has said and your refusal to accept fowler's apology will also count against you. If I may reiterate, it is important in a collaborative environment to be able to weather some degree of conflict otherwise that environment will eject you. So far, I haven't seen you do that with any reasonable degree of grace. I've tried to broker a peace between the two of you, I see that fowler is willing to step up to the plate to help do that, but you appear unwilling to do that. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 16:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

'Reply to RP:How did you assume that I have not accepted Fowler's apology? What is Thank you for your undertaking, I even used the euphamism undertaking so as not to hurt him? What is the problem RP?!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
If you say you've accepted his apology, I'll accept that and strike my comment above. What you want to do from here is, as I say above, your call. --rgpk (comment) 17:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I also request you to allow use of this place for a while. Since you assumed that I had issues with F&f's statement, you wrote the succeeding lines, which I think are redundant now. However your statement about conflict needs to be clarified whether conflict means content issues which I have a demonstrated record of being accomodative, or you mean that an editor should expect and bear repeated abuse, I would request you to quote the relevant guideline. Please take your time.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
YK, I have no objection to your inhabiting this talk page. As for the relevant guideline or policy, I suggest WP:Apology. You have an opportunity to make a fresh start, but only you can decide whether to take it or not. --rgpk (comment) 17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not a neutral party here. in any case, i would request Yogesh to try to take on a milder tone (reduce the combativeness as Pfly pointed out). the same applies to Fowler and myself. as Yogesh pointed out, my intention is also not to lose valuable editors. i think reasonable editors with different strong POVs eventually result in a better end product. --CarTick (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Reply to RP: I have no issue with F's apology, it is behind us, please answer my question if you may? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I did answer your question. Read WP:Apology. What more do you expect? --rgpk (comment) 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

od: Whether by conflict you mean content disputes, about which I have no issues, or it means that an editor should be prepared to face repeated abuse and insults?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that the purpose of an apology is to move forward from perceptions of abuse and insult. I'm not sure what you're expecting from all this. Fowler has apologized. Ncmvocalist has given an opinion in which he takes both you as well as fowler to task. Now you seem to be demanding something more from fowler and demanding that ncmvocalist strike his comments. It seems to me that we're at a point where reasonable people can move on but you don't appear to see that. I'm happy to keep repeating this, but honestly, don't see much point in this conversation any longer. So, perhaps it would be a good idea if you either moved on or just brought the matter up somewhere else. --rgpk (comment) 18:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, RP and Ncmvocalist, on second thoughts, I invited you to arbitrate, you have helped in the dispute, you have spent time on it. Thank you and sorry. I am striking out all my comments. This is not the time for it.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark/Archive_9&oldid=1252073742"