User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

• Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters

• News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department

• In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder

• In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced

• Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute

As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Join the Community!

Do consider joining the WikiProject India Mailing List (https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-en) (if not already done) which provides communication for the community.

For other lists which may be of interest to you, see http://wiki.wikimedia.in/Mailing_Lists.

AshLin (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "India". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk • contribs) 04:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

• Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers

• News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering

• Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open

• Technology report: Major strands of development cycle coalesce as 1.19 is deployed to first wikis

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing tag query

This user never edited this article [1], appeared on this ANI discussion out of nowhere from semi idle [2], and there were previous reports to admins about clear canvassing which I wont refer to because of my interaction ban with an involved user. Is that a reason enough to believe that this editor could not have reached this article by himself? --lTopGunl (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The user has commented on your talk page as well as DarknessShine's talk pages and it is not unlikely that they arrived at both the ANI discussion as well as the Afghanistan discussions that way. I, for example, have never edited the article either but do have your talk page on my watch list. Always, in my opinion, better to AGF. --regentspark (comment) 12:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Your clarification is completely reasonable, the reason for the tag was that there have been a series of related jump ins like this by this user, but I'll not escalate on this one. After all the closer is going to see the consensus and not the 'votes'. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Better this way. But you should file an SPI on those SPIs on the pakistan talk page. Really suspicious (though the consensus there seems quite clear and the sock activity won't change it). --regentspark (comment) 18:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

• News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming

• Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative

• Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention

• WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction

• Featured content: By plane, by ship, and by stagecoach: Featured content goes trekking this week

• Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open

• Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Another query

I requested closure of an RFC (before the closure was addressed, the RFC was restarted - I added remarks about that too at [3])... now I have an interaction ban so you can read those remarks on the given link, the RFC was closed accordingly by an admin. This uninvolved admin closure (requested by me) was reverted by the user I have interaction ban with. [4] Is this an indirect ban violation or just a bad revert of a formal closure? How am I to go about this if it is the latter case? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing my nominations (regardless of the achieved consensus) isn't a violation of ban? [5]... can I do the opposite too? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The query has been reported to ANI... eh. [6] --lTopGunl (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the un-closure. Will drop a note on DarknessShines talk page. --regentspark (comment) 13:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a clarification discussion open at ANI now to put these types of issues in black and white in regards to the ban, including if I could ask such a question at this page. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Commented there as well. --regentspark (comment) 13:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC closure

You should not have closed that RFC. It is an entirely different proposal to the last one as it deals with article layout and not content. And how long does one have to wait till an RFC is not "pointy"? Please self revert your unilateral closure of a valid RFC, or point me to the policy which says that I may not follow the normal steps of the dispute resolution process. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to revert Jcai's reopening of the RfC. When does an RfC become pointy? When the initiator has a battling history with other editors on the same article. I think you should be careful you don't end up with a Pakistan related articles topic ban but it's entirely your call. --regentspark (comment) 16:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well you do not have to revert him, it has already been done. My question was, what is a reasonable amount of time before I could post an RFC so it would no longer be "pointy" I am not trying to be a pain here, but the new RFC was about how the article ought to be laid out, not about the content from the previous one. Discussion on content would have begun after a consensus was reached on weather or not certain things should have their own sections. I hope I am being a little clearer this time around. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Given your situation with TopGun, I'm not sure if you should probably have let the earlier RfC run its course and make your change suggestions there. Either way, TopGun should not have reverted JCai. --regentspark (comment) 17:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The other one had run it's course, and only two involved editors had commented, the other chap did not understand the issue . It seemed sensible to me to garner a consensus on article layout, then work on the content. I will not be commenting on the RFC, I intended to let it run without trying to argue the details. But if it is closed again I will wait a month before posting another, is that enough time? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And now that it has again been closed[7] how long do I need to wait? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If I were in your shoes, I'd just move on to other articles and not bother with another RfC. Plenty of other stuff to work on. --regentspark (comment) 20:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your incredibly helpful response, and I must say you did a wonderful job of answering my questions. A month it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hey RegentsPark, just a heads up were having a similar discussion at my talkpage and I've mentioned your name a couple of times. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)