Jump to content

User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:RegentsPark

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 23:57, 19 October 2024 (Fixing Lint errors from Wikipedia:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Discussions concerning Indian Subcontinent

An ip user Special:Contributions/76.67.18.192 is trying to bring up discussions about this at South Asia and Indian Subcontinent. They are also trying to rename a section from "Definition by South Asian Studies programs" to "Definition by tertiary studies programs"

Since you were active on this subject in the past, I thought I should warn you. (you are being informed of this because I saw you participated in discussions in the Talk:South Asia archives) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ganges

Was that an admin edit or one of an ordinary editor? I'm not particularly wedded to the quote, but I do think the discussion needs to be on the talk page and should not be bald statements or emotional appeals. --Snowded TALK 17:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Purely an ordinary editor edit - WP:IAR. I think the discussion on this quote is a distraction but, of course, anyone is free to revert my removal. --rgpk (comment) 20:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I did revert it, but then reverted my own revert in the interests of collegiality. It is more important to make progress on the article than to get bogged down at this stage in ideological wars. Regards all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Arbitration Tree shaping

Hi, Martin Hogbin has requested Arbitration for myself and Sydney BlueGum. [1] I'm contacting you to let you know I've mentioned you in my reply. Blackash have a chat 01:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi

RegentsPark we need to talk on your censoring of the sonia gandhi page as it is seriously impairing the image of wikipedia. Kindly have a look at this article in huffington post, the latest in a series of many such articles. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cleo-paskal/worlds-9-most-powerful-pe_b_853132.html (Parthpms (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

Parthpms, like I say on the article talk page, I'm not against including material on these controversies. However, in a blp we need to be conservative with what we write and sources must be impeccable. I'm sure good sources can be found (the Huffington Post one is a blog but I think parts of it may be acceptable, we should discuss this on the talk page) and the swiss bank/bofors parts written in an acceptable way. Let's discuss all this on the talk page of the article. --rgpk (comment) 14:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding tree shaping

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rebekah Johansson

Hi, could you please block Rebekah Johansson again. So no IP can edit it. New disruptive edits. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Done for six months. Let me or some other admin know if you think it needs to be unprotected sooner. --rgpk (comment) 02:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Tsitsernavank Monastery

Please note that after your removal of protection from the Tsitsernavank Monastery article, an anonymous user is once again starting an edit war. Please consider indefinitely protecting the page from the edits of unregistered users. Regards, Serouj (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I would add that this is more of vandalism rather than an actual edit war, because the anonymous user is removing sourced text and replacing it with an opposite viewpoint that has no basis in reality and is unsourced. Thanks, Serouj (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I see that it has been protected by another admin. --rgpk (comment) 11:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

thank you

i was just lazy to file that report. --CarTick (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Article - Rahul Gandhi ... seeking help for edit

REGARDING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE - RAHUL GANDHI

I have put in the following request on the Discussion page of the article.

REQUEST FOR EDIT

Regarding Section Controversies Sub-section Boston Airport detainment

This reads as under:-

In 2005, four lawyers including Prem Chandra Sharma filed a public litigation petition in the High Court. They requested that information be made available to the public in regard to an alleged incident on September 21, 2001 at Boston Airport where Rahul Gandhi was detained by the FBI for 9 hours for questioning, and verification if Mr. Gandhi was carrying $200,000 in cash which he was unable to explain to the airport authorities.[32][33] The lawyers provided further evidence that Mr. Gandhi's release may have been secured by Brijesh Mishra the then principal secretary to the Prime Minister. The petition sought a writ of mandamus to the Indian ambassador to the US and the Union Home Secretary to make a disclosure about the episode.[32] However previously, The Hindu newspaper had reported that according to "a senior" Indian diplomat there had been no involvement by the Indian envoy to the US in the matter.[33]

Reference No. 32 is from The Times of India dated 8th March,2005. This reference is not available on the internet. Reference No. 33 is from The Hindu dated 29th September, 2001. This clearly states that both the Indian Authorities as well as the United States Authorities have denied the incident.

The Times of India in an article dated 3rd September, 2005 clearly states that the Public Interest Litigation filed against Mr. Rahul Gandhi has been rejected by the Lucknow High Court. The text of the article is as under:-

'PIL against Rahul Gandhi rejected PTI, Mar 9, 2005, 10.04pm IST LUCKNOW: Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday rejected a PIL on Congress MP Rahul Gandhi's alleged detention in Boston airport in the US in 2001. The division bench comprising justice Jagdish Bhalla and Justice M A Khan rejected the petition filed by four secretaries of the Rashtra Raksha Manch.

The link for this article is http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2005-03-09/india/27857680_1_pil-rashtra-raksha-manch-petition

It is obvious that the so called incident was denied by the authorities in 2001 itself as reported in The Hindu.

Relying on a subsequent Times of India report of 8th March, 2005 does not make any sense especially in the light of The Times of India report of 9th March, 2005 which shows that the case has been rejected by the High Court.

I propose that, in the light of the above discussion, the entire sub-section should be immediately removed. Vishvjit (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am also placing it in your Discussion page seeking your help. Vishvjit (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Many Thanks for your intervention Vishvjit (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Perplexed by an image

Hi there, I'm perplexed by an image File:Ganga.jpg which doesn't seem to have any information about it. It says it was copied from the French Wikipedia and has the name of a user named Nataraja. I can't decide if this is an old painting or a new one, a well-known painting or one made by user:Nataraja. If the latter is the case, why is it being used in Ganga in Hinduism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

PS My suspicions were aroused when I realized that all others depictions of Ganga's mount (see here for example) were crocodile-like and were called Makara, rather than the obvious river dolphin shown in the painting. Any help will be appreciated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It looks like it was painted by Nataraja ("an amateur painter" according to his user page). The image itself was added by Redtigerxyz in this diff. I doubt if it has any historical value. Do you have a better option in mind? --rgpk (comment) 13:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. At that time, there was no other image which could better depict Ganga, now you have images that better depict Ganga. Based on this discussion, I had replaced the image, but was reverted. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see it reverted and it looks like your new kalighat image is in the article. Nice choice! --rgpk (comment) 16:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Ganges. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Didn't realize it was there as well. Looks too fanciful a picture to me to be kept in an encyclopedia. --rgpk (comment) 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Seperate india section added in "reactions to the death of osama" page.

Had once added the section, which was later removed by "user-ichigo". Provided reliable sources and have re-added the section. The section was previousely sub-sectioned under "asia". Removed it from the asia sectgion and "added" a completely detailed and unbiased section. Plz check it. Hari7478 (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Eric Saade

Hi, could you please check out my request for protection for the Eric Saade article. It has been suffering from disruptive edits for quite some time over the singers Palestinian background. He will perform in Eurovision in less than 24hours and I was hoping for 1-2 weeks block so the contest can pass and results can be added without problems of vandalism involved. Thanks my friend.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi

Hey, about the controversies section of the Rahul Gandhi article. I feel that a section named Controversies will just be a vandal magnet, and WP:CSECTION thinks so. I think it would be best if we integrated the criticism into the body of the article. Could we do that without introducing a bias? Two more politics-related articles which would probably need such integration are Sonia Gandhi and Lal Krishna Advani. Your thoughts on this? Regards, Yes Michael? •Talk 17:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. It is easily done with the Rahul Gandhi article by deleting the "Controversies" section title, but the text of the Hindu extremists section also needs some work. I can take a crack at it later this afternoon if you like. --rgpk (comment) 17:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if I can do it; if not, feel free to take a shot at it. Yes Michael? •Talk 17:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the material around a bit; please have a look at Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi and make changes as necessary. I will try and do the same for LK Advani tomorrow. Thanks. Yes Michael? •Talk 20:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Recentism tag on Kashmir conflict

I think I disagree, but want to go to sleep now, I'll let you know when I bring it up on the talk page - maybe I'll change my mind. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, the stuff dates back to 2008, Obama's policy on Kashmir has gotta be recent, and his opinions are important. But my mind is always open. --rgpk (comment) 02:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Vote on article name

Hello. You are invited to take part in a 'Gordion knot vote' with three options on the future title of List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 11:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

moi? --rgpk (comment) 19:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
You posted in defence of Philip at an ANI thread detailed in this RFC - I'm soliciting views from anyone I can find who has contributed to discussions involving him, and thought you may like to contribute. Parrot of Doom 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess I'll have to do some digging. Thanks for the notification. --rgpk (comment) 20:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
See here Parrot of Doom 07:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I remember now. --rgpk (comment) 10:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I wonder, would you please review the last day or two of contributions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer? I wish to ask a suitable admin to take the action you were proposing there, and it would be appreciated if you could suggest where I can raise that request. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I've asked Ncmvocalist to take a look. He has a lot of experience with RfCs and I trust his judgement. --rgpk (comment) 13:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Request

  • I had come to you earlier for advice on many occasions when ever I had to handle BLP issues. I am one of the long-time editor who has been working with the "Sathya Sai Baba" article [2] since 2009. I spent the last 3 years cleaning this article addressed every BLP violation, taking it to every possible Wikipedia BLP forum. You had helped me in the past with your advices. It gives me great satisfaction that in the last 3 years I did succeed in changing this article from a BLP nightmare (how it was in 2009) to an encyclopedic article - using highly reliable scholarly sources.
  • After all this clean effort in the last 3 years I am being wrongly accused of Sock Puppetry with out any valid claims. The reasons given are ridiculous - citing my UserName as the problem (after 3 years of my contributions), spelling and typo errors I might have made in my past edits as the reason for the sock puppetry claim case.
  • You have seen the Sathya Sai Baba article BLP nightmares in 2009 and also know how it looks today [3] after 3 years of massive Clean up. You also knew about me as I had come to you on many occasions for BLP advice and help. I would greatly appreciate your comments and your help in this case here [4]. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I apologize but I don't have the time today to look at the report in detail. I did read the spi report and note that jehochman has asked for more detail and will investigate further so you're likely in good hands anyway. Will try to delve deeper into this tomorrow if the matter is not resolved before then. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 16:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Another interaction ban proposal for Sarek and TT

I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted. --rgpk (comment) 01:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Tibet on South Asia

Quigley seems to want to start a discussion on the inclusion of Tibet in South Asia. Please chime in if you can. You are being informed of this as you took part in similar discussions on Talk:South Asia in the past. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Pain and The Great One

I'm perplexed by your decision. You are aware that there are recognized "correct" ways of capitalizing titles, right? Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, have standardization rules. Using your logic, to pull a random example, Because of the Times should be Because Of The Times because that's the way it's styled on the cover.

See my Owl and the Pussycat/Cat and the Canary examples for why The Pain and The Great One is an exception to the rule. Wikkitywack (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally, we go with whatever title is in normal use rather than the "correct" one. Or, to put it another way, we reflect usage rather than correct it. --rgpk (comment) 16:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thunderbolt move declined

Can you take another look at Talk:Thunderbolt#Suggested move? You had previously closed this one as no consensus. The users who support the move appear to primarilly base their positions on WP:DAB, while the keep opinions appear to be based on the dictionary definition of the term - not the primary topic - and so have no policy or guideline to support the keep postions.

Is there a noticeboard to discuss or appeal closed move requests?

I took another look at this today after another IP tried converting the article to be on the subject of the technology (which has its own article at Thunderbolt (interface)). I disagree with their actions, but it brought this article back to my attention.

I don't want to restart another move discussion, especially as I started the prior discussion. Restarting one myself could potentially be viewed as disruptive, so I feel that if a new discussion is needed it should originate from a user other than myself. But, I strongly disagree with the outcome of the prior discussion - so thought I would ask you as you're much more familiar with those processes (I spend most of my time with the WP:SBL and WP:AIV, so not fully familiar with move request procedures). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You have several alternatives when you disagree with the outcome of a move request and more leeway when the request is closed as 'no consensus'. (1) Open a new RM after a reasonable period of time - I'd say about 3 months when a move is closed as 'no consensus' is sufficient time though there is no hard and fast rule about this. (2) Some form of dispute resolution. In this case and RfC would seem more appropriate since there aren't well defined parties available for mediation. (3) Arbitration - but that seems a bit of a sledgehammer approach for this situation. My suggestion would be to wait another month and start a new move request in mid-July. That wouldn't be disruptive (and you can quote me on that!). --rgpk (comment) 21:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Notify Talk

You have a message in Talk:Mughal_Empire#Protected about the lock. » nafSadh did say 05:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

unblock

That was ridiculously arbitrary and absolutely rude. Do you think the editor even knows the difference between an edit war and 3RR? It's apparent from the talk page that s/he doesn't and unblocking your buddy is shameful! Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

He/she is not my buddy. And, blocking should not be used when a warning would have achieved the same effect. Using tools in a heavy handed way is what is shameful, not unblocking an obviously good faith editor. --rgpk (comment) 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Both parties were editing in good faith and both were convinced they were right in their edit warring. Your bias is more than apparent by your statement above. Toddst1 (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I really don't see much point in blocking editors when a warning would work just as well, but, I suppose, opinions differ. BTW, I've unblocked the other editor as well. That editor doesn't even appear to have been adequately warned about the consequences of an edit war. --rgpk (comment) 21:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
While I agree in the end with your unblocks, I do believe you went over the heads of many other administrators. Paglakahinka had already had his unblock request denied. I believe the least you could have done is request an affirmation from both editors that they will completely refrain from edit warring. You could possibly have instigated an enforced one-revert rule. I am not an administrator, but those are my views based on the experience I have had here. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you Ryan. However, sometimes it is better to go over the heads of other administrators (WP:IAR!) when it is apparent that there is no harm to the encyclopedia. About Paglakahinka, I don't think he/she was adequately warned about the consequences and, in fairness, could not unblock Sodabottle and not unblock the other user as well. Hopefully, this will settle down and we'll all learn something from it. Thanks for your good faith comments here as well as on Sodabottle's talk page. --rgpk (comment) 15:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1 - I had a faulty understanding of what edit warring /3rr is. Pagalakahinka's knowledge of rules was worser than mine as he is a new user. We both did back and forth reverting and it produced 4 reverts in about 30 hours. Pagalakahinka stopped his additions to the article after i issued a 3rr warning and started discussing the issue with me. Two hours after the last revert, when the edit war has clearly ended and both participants are engaging in a discussion, you blocked us both. We were both discussing the issue in the talk page - just like the BRD process recommends. At this point why do we both need a punitive block?. A strong warning (and in my case stripping rollbacker rights) would have shown us what we were doing wrong. Blocking us for 24 hours achieved nothing - except handing out punishment for us both. So what we have here are two users with insufficient knowledge of WP policies who technically violated the rules, but in the end settled down to build consensus. The system clearly worked as it should. So tell me what exactly blocking us for 24 hours is going to accomplish?. --Sodabottle (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's complete bullshit. Your comments User_talk:Paglakahinka#Edit_warring_warning_in_J._Jayalalitha show that you knew a slow-motion edit war are grounds for blocking. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I never knew slow motion edit warring would lead to blocking till i got blocked. Till today, i have only seen people being strongly warned for slow motion edit wars and articles locked (again not my strong area, as i dont generally go edit warring over content). Read my message again - it says Doing so repeatedly is slow motion edit warring. If you reinsert one more time without consensus, i will report you to the admins. Did i tell him that he will get blocked for that?. I told him "i will report you to the admins". For me that would mean a admin taking a look and warning the user to desist and follow policy. I warned him about blocking when he came close to breaking 3rr, by using the standard 3rr template. I repeat, i never knew any kind of edit warring is grounds for a block - i was aware of 3rr and in some special cases 1rr/0rr. But not this. --Sodabottle (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
block was unnecessary and excessive. a warning/reminder would have been enough — my intereaction with Sodabottle gives me the confidence to believe that he would have certainly complied with that. i dont want to blame anyone and escalate the issue unnecessarily, everybody makes mistakes. --CarTick (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Water. Bridge. Under. It is done. There is no warring right now and blocks are not intended to be punitive, so there would be no point in reinstating. Let's all move on. If the two admins want to have a discussion about courtesies then that is between them, and either of them could take that issue to AN if they felt strongly enough about it. For the rest of us, well, tomorrow is another day. - Sitush (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Please see discussion here Toddst1 (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem

thanks. see the main problem was no one read what additional infos i had added. I had provided all references too. All this happened cause the other user sodabottle reverted again and again. U may check my present additions http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=J._Jayalalithaa&action=historysubmit&diff=434938150&oldid=434894705 . Hope no issues arise as i have only improved the article with more facts Paglakahinka (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Unblock

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. We all have our occasional crazy moment. :) --rgpk (comment) 22:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Proposed deletion of Hanseen Abdelnaby

I removed the prod tag you placed on Hanseen Abdelnaby as per policy an article that has ever been at AfD is permanently ineligible for prod. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; please do not interpret this action as my endorsement for keeping the article. If you still wish to pursue deletion, please open another AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. No worries. --rgpk (comment) 15:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

USB/Universal Serial Bus

Your additional comments are requested at Talk:USB. I wsasn't really that fussed about this change but the conclusion reached seems in clear contradiction of the balance of opinion which had clearly considered WP:COMMONNAME but found it less than definitive. I'm actually quite angry about this now, and I'm considering whether to take it up via dispute resolution. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. The page is on my watchlist now, and I'll be happy to make additional comments when necessary. --rgpk (comment) 14:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

User:Paglakahinka

I note that you recently unblocked User:Paglakahinka due to insufficient warnings re: editing warring at J. Jayalalithaa. S/he is now back warring both there and at Hema Malini, for both of which she has had numerous non-templated and templated warnings. She also appears to be generally ignoring consensus and seems to be owning, eg: she started a discussion at J. Jayalalithaa and immediately changed the article to suit their position despite being well aware from past discussion (and other actions today) that it was contentious.

Any chance that you could have a word, please? I will probably be accused of canvassing myself now, but that is something else which she has been warned for today! - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --rgpk (comment) 16:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like spiff got there first. Problem solved. --rgpk (comment) 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl got there before Spiff. A swarm of admins, indeed! - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Emo

Hi, you indefinitely protected the above article some time ago, so you may be interested in this unprotection request. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorted out. Thanks! --rgpk (comment) 03:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Your question

I saw your question at 2008 Mumbai attacks. I have not been able to look at the talk page archives yet. I will do so soon and let you know. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I must admit to being surprised that the september 11 attacks article doesn't mention the word terrorist. (I recall some discussion on the title of the Mumbai attacks at the time we were writing it as well but don't have the time to look it up.) --rgpk (comment) 20:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping

An arbitration case regarding Tree shaping has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. The topic covered by the article currently located at Tree shaping, interpreted broadly, is placed under discretionary sanctions.
  2. User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
  3. User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
  4. User:Slowart is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
  5. The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.
  6. Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat2011

We've got the same tendentious problems with Thisthat2011 at Talk:Kurmi as you have just commented on at Talk:Romila Thapar. I have so far issued two warnings for disruptive editing on the talk page, which is something they have been warned about by others in recent months. What avenues are open to resolve this? Other than RfC, which will just waste everyone's time because the problem here seems to be the person, not the various articles. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought it proper that I should inform here that I have mentioned the above comment at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics-MangoWong (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks for letting me know. --rgpk (comment) 12:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you collapse another WP:INDIA discussion?

Greetings, can you also collapse Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Cleanup_needed_at_Varna_.28Hinduism.29? Same editor involved, who simply won't confine issues to the appropriate places. TT2011 is pretty notorious for carrying on the exact same argument simultaneously at an article Talk, ANI or NPOV, and multiple User Talk pages, while demanding he be answered at each place. He's been extremely disruptive (see Talk:Kurmi) through tendentious editing. I admit, Sitush and I should have avoided rising to his bait on WP:INDIA, but having had such huge headaches with him over days it was just hard to let him rant and not try to show people how impractical he's being.

In any case Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Cleanup_needed_at_Varna_.28Hinduism.29 should have just been me saying "hey, could use some help" and maybe one or two short replies of "sounds good, I'll help" or "make sure you do XYZ", but instead TT2011 again tried to turn it into another discussion. Can we collapse it to save bulk? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done. Let me know if you think TT2011 needs help figuring out the appropriate venue for his/her concerns. --rgpk (comment) 21:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Talk page move

Thanks for moving the Juba pages around yesterday. However, I think you forgot to move Talk:Juba, South Sudan to Talk:Juba. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Done now. --rgpk (comment) 11:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

India FAR

Hi there, The history section expansion of India in response to FAR comments is now complete. All remaining issues have been addressed. Please weigh in at FARC. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you F&f for all the work. I'll try to weigh in later tonight. --rgpk (comment) 21:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! Hope your travels are going great! And that reminds me that I forgot to wish you, so: Bon Voyage! If you get a chance, please take a quick look at the FAR. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Responded there. Travels are fine but internet connections are lousy (prehistoric speeds) so I'm mostly confining myself to work use! Hopefully, it'll get better during the India leg of my trip in mid-August. --rgpk (comment) 12:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-lethal Weaps

I am requestions SOMEONE step in on the “Non-lethal Weaps” page to order the removal of batons and caltrops; Under the laws of all 50 US states and most other civilized places (“civilized” as in “not anarchies”), these are considered lethal weaps and must be removed. The legal definition for “lethal” is “Likely to cause death or serious injury.” Both are likely to cause death (moreso batons; you can easily beat someone to death) or “serious/debilitate injury” (try running after stepping on a caltrop).

Assault Deadly Weapon: “California Penal Code §245. (a) (1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.” I would like to have gotten Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington’s applicable Penal Code §’s for you (the first three being other states I have lived in, and Washington being my current state of residence), but I couldn’t find them on-line (if anyone knows a source please tell me). At any rate, though, they DO qualify as “deadly” weaps by law (and common sense).

Additionally, other than here at wikipedia, I have never seen batons referred to as anything other than a deadly weap. I’m not saying they have no place, but not on a “less than” or “non-lethal” weaps page.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

I won't have the time to look at this for the next couple of days but will take a look, if no one has in the meantime, this weekend. Best. --rgpk (comment) 10:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That’s perfectly fine. As long as SOMEONE removes the dis-information before someone else gets very badly hurt, or in very serious trouble (and I do mean lengthy prison sentences).Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Thank you kindly

Thank you for your support
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


HELP!

Thanks for your comments. You can now help here.... User:Animeshkulkarni/List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Tree Shaping -> Arborsculpture RFM 2

A second request to move the article "tree shaping" to "arborsculpture" has been opened. Since you have previously been involved in the subject, you may wish to participate in the discussion. AfD hero (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the note. --rgpk (comment) 15:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Welcome India template talk

Sorry, I didn't realize that you had already posted there and said some of the same things I was saying, only a lot more elegantly. Didn't mean to sound like I was opposing you.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I just want to make sure it is neutrally worded. If, as it appears from your and Sitush's comments, it is being used indiscriminately, then it'll lose steam on its own fairly rapidly, so I shouldn't worry too much about that. --rgpk (comment) 18:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Talk:China move proposal

Dropping a line on your talk page as well as User talk:GTBacchus about the discussion that's raging along regarding the move proposal. It's still generating additions to the topic, but I'm just curious if you think there's any kind of consensus, or lack there-of, yet for what the final decision ought to be? I'm kinda starting to lean towards a non-consensus close rather than my earlier "move" thinking, but I dunno if that's a result of the arguments or my backing away from the consequences of the move... Tabercil (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. This is going to require careful attention :) --rgpk (comment) 16:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Given all the bits that have been spilled on this, it looks like just about any decision that we come to is going to draw fire from corner or another... Tabercil (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi RegentsPark. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC on the primary topic of China. After a relist, Talk:China#Requested move August 2011 is ready for a closure discussion by a triumvirate of admins. Cunard (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Extra page moves related to People's Republic of China move to "China"

I noticed that the talk page archives for the People's Republic of China article are now orphaned and the archives links at the top of talk:China now redirect to talk:Chinese civilization archives. Could you please move the PRC talk archives to China and delete the remaining redirects? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't tonight but will take a look tomorrow in the morning. Thanks for the heads up. --rgpk (comment) 00:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. Let me know if anything got messed up (there are lots of subpages everywhere). --rgpk (comment) 14:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

EIC coattailer

Could you please take a look at Talk:East_India_Company#Sanjive_Mehta and East India Company Fine Food Limited, where I've added a speedy deletion template (as well as the latter's talk page). Thought I'd get an expert's opinion on it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent comment at WT:IN

Saw your recent comment at WT:IN. I have been trying to ignore the stuff but my apologies if my recent contributions have made things worse. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are not the problem since you're entitled to defend yourself. Although it is probably better to just ignore it for now and respond only if the other editors take it to ANI. --regentspark (comment) 12:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
OK. I have been trying, honest! It is just that mud sticks, and there is a lot of mud being thrown. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Residents

I've created a page, List of British Residents or Political Agents in Delhi, 1803–1857. The tentative list I posted on my talk page seemed to be confirmed by the sources. In particular, if you go to page 37 in the Punjab Gazetteer (in the refs), you'll find a timeline in narrative form.

Would you like to fill out one of the redlinks there—William Fraser? Two references at the end give enough material to get started. Granted they are old refs, but in the absence of modern refs, and for bare facts, they should suffice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

PS I've also created two stubs: Ludlow Castle, Delhi (used as the Residency from 1831 to 1857?) and Samuel Ludlow (surgeon). Feedback will be appreciated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll try. I have severe real life complications these days - unfortunately! --regentspark (comment) 01:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
No hurry. Take your time. Good luck with the RL issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Blantyre move...something went wrong

Hey, something seems to have gone wrong with the move. The Talk:Blantyre, Malawi page wasn't moved with the Blantyre, Malawi -> Blantyre page Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Should be ok now. BTW, I cleaned up a lot of links that should have been pointing at the Scottish town but were pointing to the disamb page. If you could keep a lookout for ones that I missed, that'll be great. --regentspark (comment) 19:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Adygea et al

Hi there! I have a question regarding your recent closure of the RM for the Republic of Adygea and other similar articles. You mentioned that you "don't see any evidence that consistency in federal subjects of Russia is a formal guideline". However, I did specifically mention WP:NCCS which, although not specific to the federal subjects, is specific exactly to this type of situation, and which states that "it is useful for all divisions of the same type in the same country to share the same article title format". The titles of the majority of the articles about the Russian federal subjects include the federal subject type (oblast, krai, etc.), with some (but not all) of the republics now being the only exception seemingly only for the reasons which NCCS was designed to bypass. Coupling this with the fact that you found my other arguments at least somewhat sensible, I am curious why you chose to disregard that part. NCCS further states that deciding "whether the uniformity is worth the cost should be decided in each case on its merits", and I just don't see the merits being particularly well articulated by the supporting side. If you could clarify, that'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2011; 13:36 (UTC)

Hi. By no specific guideline I meant that there isn't a guideline that picks one form of article title over another for articles relating to federal subjects of Russia. Absent specific guidelines or consensus, we should generally follow policy and therefore, In these cases, it is the common name policy that should dictate the title. --regentspark (comment) 14:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not aware of any guidelines that deal with picking out titles specifically for the country subdivisions; Russia certainly is not different enough to warrant a dedicated guideline of its own. As for following policy, as I mentioned before, WP:NCCS obviously applies here; as there is no "violation of idiom", and the other side failed to show how the longer names are "otherwise inappropriate". All in all, the only argument for shorter names seems to be "common name"—a concern NCCS was specifically created to deal with in the context of country divisions. Thus, I still don't understand the outcome. Could you please be more specific (and by the by, I don't mean to hound you; I merely wish to understand the rationale behind the closure)? Thanks again!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2011; 15:13 (UTC)
In general, policy diktats carry a greater weight than almost anything else (on wikipedia and in the real world). However, wikipedia is a flexible place and exceptions in the form of specific guidelines are both permissible as well as beneficial to the project. For these exceptions to be valid and usable, they must be consensus based (i.e., created through discussion and general agreement as to their usefulness) rather than happenstance based (i.e., it just happens that other similar articles are similarly titled). In this particular case, I saw the consistency as being happenstance based and therefore preferred the policy argument over the consistency argument. I hope that's specific enough because it fairly clearly describes my thinking behind the move and I'm going to be at a loss to explain this further! --regentspark (comment) 15:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
No, this suffices. While I do find your response disappointing, I'll admit that it is your right as a closer to have some flexibility in interpreting the guidelines. The "happenstance" argument just seems very artificial to me—the articles in the series are either titled using the same scheme or they aren't. When they aren't, it's usually for very good reasons (such as the previously mentioned violation of idiom). When no such good reasons are presented, using a "consensus" that does not address the substance of the counterpoint being made and hiding behind generic policies instead seems like a very feeble foundation to base a decision on. Consensus (if 5:2 can even be called that) may change, after all. The essence of my objection will not. But let me stop before I drift into babble :) Thanks for your time all the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2011; 16:15 (UTC)
No worries. Your comments are thoughtful ones and, even though you're going away less than satisfied, let's just say that this exchange is sure to have tweaked my weltanschauung a bit. Always a good thing that. --regentspark (comment) 16:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark/Archive_10&oldid=1252137086"