Misplaced Pages

User talk:RegentsPark: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:55, 28 May 2010 editMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →{{User|Rcvx}}: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 21:32, 28 May 2010 edit undo212.183.140.36 (talk) →{{User|Rcvx}}: no such personNext edit →
Line 436: Line 436:
:The admin's comment seemed to imply that he/she considers the six month protection to be warranted. I took a look at the page history again and there is a repeated attempt to insert a specific piece of information by a wandering IP over a period of a month. Noting that Nightscream has more experience with the article, and noting that I know nothing about the novel in question, I prefer to leave this at that admin's discretion. However, I will drop another note on the admin's talk page asking that he/she look at this conversational thread. Regards. --] (]) 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC) :The admin's comment seemed to imply that he/she considers the six month protection to be warranted. I took a look at the page history again and there is a repeated attempt to insert a specific piece of information by a wandering IP over a period of a month. Noting that Nightscream has more experience with the article, and noting that I know nothing about the novel in question, I prefer to leave this at that admin's discretion. However, I will drop another note on the admin's talk page asking that he/she look at this conversational thread. Regards. --] (]) 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


== {{User|Rcvx}} == == {{User|Rvcx}} ==


This user has made 228 content edits in his wikipedia life. I have no idea why has planted himself on ]. Nor for that matter why he has reported me on ] for pointing his unfamiliarity with the way priimary souirces are used on WP> as you he has attempte his own analysis of Jensen's 1969 paper, which I said he was in no poisiton to do (like any other wikipedian). He has twice reverted the two articles This user has made 228 content edits in his wikipedia life. I have no idea why has planted himself on ]. Nor for that matter why he has reported me on ] for pointing his unfamiliarity with the way priimary souirces are used on WP> as you he has attempte his own analysis of Jensen's 1969 paper, which I said he was in no poisiton to do (like any other wikipedian). He has twice reverted the two articles

Revision as of 21:32, 28 May 2010

Archiving icon
Archives

NYC Misplaced Pages Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area
Last: 11/15/2009
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Misplaced Pages Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Misplaced Pages at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Barbados Banks.JPG

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 15 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 22 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on changing the protection policy for schools

As you commented on YellowMonkey's statement on WP:AN I thought I should mention that the schools part of that is now an RfC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've watchlisted the page and will give the concept some thought. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

I just want to thank you for protecting the Sarah Jessica Parker article. It's very much appreciated. --CrohnieGal 12:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! --RegentsPark (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your reply to Semi-protection Article. Can you tell me how I can protect my changes done to the article as any one can revert back to old version which is Spoiling the Sikh Identity & Violates the NPOV fundamentals of Misplaced Pages. --Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for valuable words , Let me put my changes one by one. Moreover, this topic is controversial and in articles reference are misused , Talk from non-Sikh were preferred and moderator is Biased(Check the Discussion Page).--Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 29 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Help stopping edit war

Hey, Regents, I'm hoping that you will take a look at Talk:Wizards_(film). I issued a 3O and cautioned both users about the edit war there on the point that I was asked to opine on. The war stopped on that point, but then continued on a related point. I warned them again and put warnings on both of their talk pages (Sugar Bear (talk · contribs) subsequently deleted it). It looked like everything had calmed down, with one chunk of information (the one on which I had opined) out and the other in, but then Prosfilaes (talk · contribs) — the one who was adding the information in dispute — revered again today. Would you consider reverting the todays's edits, fully protecting the page for a week, and issuing such warnings as you may see fit? I'll watch this page for your response? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC) PS: If you'll check their block logs, neither of these users is unfamiliar with edit warring. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) (Minor correction 01:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC) - TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK))

I've protected the page and will take a close look. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Regents, looking forward to seeing what you think. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 02:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
While we're on the discussion of the wrong version, may I point out that part of the conto

Wizards (film)

The editor Prosfilaes is clearly trying to push his own POV on the article Wizards (film). He removed sourced content and added the opinion of an author whose opinion was already determined to not be notable, and is, in fact, overtly negative and not in any way objectionable (comparing the film itself to "the Nazi propaganda mill"). Your decision to protect the page rather than reverting Prosfilaes' vandalism is absurdly misguided. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

It's only for a couple of days. We'll figure out what is right. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
While we're on the discussion of the wrong version, may I point out that the sourced material that he's complaining about me removing is "Critics loved the movie" (cite: the filmmaker, http://somepage that doesn't even say anything about the subject.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 5 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

If you are around can you take a look at the recent edit-warring at the article, and see if warnings/blocks/protection are warranted ? Although I am not a regular editor of the article, I have commented on its content and am probably "involved" at this stage (despite my disinterest in the subject!). Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It would help if you/SpacemanSpiff/YellowMonkey watchlisted the page, which is often a scene of edit-warring and pretty toxic talk page conduct. Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
It also features editors having their friends block editors for being on the wrong side of a conflict. Lovely stuff. — goethean ॐ 03:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 12 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip

I think you should post a note on Okip's talk page that he has been unblocked. He may not be aware of it. I would, but there's enough reasons for me not to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

done. thx. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

United States and State Terrorism

I tried to point this out earlier (though not quite so well-worded) and found it to be nothing but banging my head against a brick wall. You might find it easier just to give it up and let NYCJosh and Jrtayloriv have the page and keep it tagged, as they will never allow changes to be made. Soxwon (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. I have some faith in the overall ability of wikipedia to correct itself (when enough generalist editors weigh in) but it does take time. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Re . Piano non troppo (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

je vous en prie--RegentsPark (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 19 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Cantonese (Yue)

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), has been attempting to rename a series of three articles against since December 2008, and has not succeeded in convincing the community. He took it upon himself just a few minutes ago to once again move the article to Yue Chinese, effectively reversing the move that you made earlier today in line with the talk page consensus - he ironically argues that the move is consensus driven. I believe that he has been acting in violation of WP:UNINVOLVED, and would ask you to please undo his move and to protect it from further moves until clear consensus has been demonstrated. Ohconfucius 06:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Regents,

I was rather puzzled by your move without any discussion or explanation. There have been months of discussion, and a Request for Move which was closed with a decision here to move to Yue Chinese by User:Angr, one of two long-standing uninvolved admins at Wikiproject Language. However, a few editors such as Ohconfucius flatly refuse to accept the change. (Angr gives his reasons there, and defends them on his talk page.) Anyway, the path to renaming the article, if they wish, should follow the normal path of discussion and consensus, and there has been no discussion recently. kwami (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think RegentsPark would have moved it if xhe hadn't seen evidence that the previous move was improperly established, so don't try to patronise him/her. Unfortunately, this little game Kwami's playing has been going on for a year and a half. Kwami has this misguided agenda, and has failed to achieve consensus on the page moves. His previous page reshuffles have left users totally perplexed as to what the articles are now supposed to be about - and if you can figure out, then you are a better man than I am. Ohconfucius 07:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If Regents had seen that and judged that it was improper, that's a different matter, but the only evidence is one brief comment, which gives no indication of that. I hadn't even seen that comment, or the closed move request, when I reverted the page move, as that discussion had petered out two weeks ago and I had only checked recent threads to see if there had been discussion on the move. Anyway, with two adamantly opposed camps who've failed to come to terms over years, a suggestion to work it out ourselves is not helpful. The only viable approach is to weigh the competing arguments, which is what Angr did. kwami (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Regents, since I didn't see that you had closed the old RfM, and can't really tell whether you have problems with Angr's closure of the previous RfM or not, I've put the page back until you have a chance to get back to me. kwami (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, I'll get back to you later today (busy morning!). Thanks for undoing the move in the meantime. --RegentsPark (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Responded on article talk page. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, everyone's had their say for months now. Have you read the archives? This was not a sudden move. It's been advertised all over the place. Nothing new was being said; it was the same stuff rehashed over and over. Also, there was no consensus to revert; it was only that the 4 or 5 editors who lost out made a big fuss. I didn't think "squeaky wheel" was a reason for decisions. The current name is factually inaccurate: there is no non-Yue Cantonese, and the article at Cantonese is also Yue, so it does not work even as an erroneous dab. Anyway, what would you suggest is the proper way to do this? Relist as a move request and leave it X days? kwami (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think that would be the best way. I did scan the discussion and, admittedly this is a naive view, I think there are pertinent points in favor of either name. A properly conducted RM should resolve the issue one way or another. I'm willing to add a comment summarizing the two previous RMs (as a neutral observer) if that helps. And, of course, I won't close subsequent moves! --RegentsPark (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
That's going to be hard, because some of us have been trying to bring some sanity for this for years, and are burned out. Many of the supporters of the ISO and per-MOS name are hard to motivate anymore; what we have left is a group of Cantonese editors who want a walled garden, who have actually said that only Cantonese get to decide what English speakers should call their language. There are Cantonese editors on both sides, but the revert crowd is all Cantonese, or maybe all but one, which would be unexpected if the argument were based on anything substantial. It's more like the debate on what to call Macedonia. Nationalist/zealot movements generally have more staying power than editors who simply want a neutral, well-formed encyclopedia, so what do we do when the nationalists raise a cry of persecution any time a reasonable decision is made that doesn't go their way? Do we just let it go on until no-one else cares any more? If we can't get previous editors to restate their opinions, does the more vocal side win merely by being more vocal? kwami (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you just go down the RfC route. That usually does produce a logical result. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
We've had several of those, but I'll try again.
BTW, the argument that "not enough time" has been allowed for discussion has been made for five months now. And that was after many months of debate already! I really have a hard time understanding how this isn't enough. kwami (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC):::
The point of a formal RM is that you get outside eyes on the issue (otherwise the issue can be decided by the talk page regulars). One day is not enough for that. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should ask Angr to wait an appropriate amount of time, and then to decide whether any new arguments have been brought to bear that affect the situation? What would be an appropriate length of time? The request just prior to the move request was open for over a month. First the opposition said to leave it open for a week, after they said another month, and after that they said another three months! kwami (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion either way on that. I'm beginning to have an opinion on the title (!) but don't want to muddy the waters. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Angr says he's sick of the whole thing and suggests leaving it to you. Can I trust that if the RfC doesn't result in any new outside ideas, but only a rehashing of the old arguments, you will move the article back per Angr's decision? I'm curious as to what your opinion is, but if you start expressing a POV, there will be howls of protest that you're not neutral. kwami (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. Let's set up the RfC with the two alternative titles and a comment section and let people explain their reasons in either section. I think I can figure out what is reasonable from all that. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The RfC is already set up. There aren't just two possibilities. If it were only that, it would be easy, as the decision that "Cantonese (Yue)" is inappropriate has already been made by Angr. He would have gone with any of several possible names, though, and "Yue Chinese" wouldn't have been his first choice. We have one newbie so far at the RfC, though he hasn't suggested a concrete proposal apart from the long-dismissed "Cantonese (linguistics)". kwami (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Barbados Banks.JPG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Barbados Banks.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Barbados

Sorry, bad phrasing. I completely accept that the cuisine and food of a nation are of paramount importance to a country and its people. My question was "How is Banks beer cultural important to Barbados?". I'm not from the country, so I felt it should be explained as for all I know it was created in Poland and now brewed in Iran. Rather than Banks Beer at sunset, which sounds like an advertisment, It should say something on the lines of "Banks Beer has been brewed in Barbados since 1923 and is the best selling beverage on the island." then it is relevent to the article. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. No worries. (I'm just particularly fond of that photo!) I'll try rephrasing it. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Echo

En mi opinión, el artículo hablaba más del Municipio (Valle de Echo) que de la localidad (Echo), por eso he trasladado. Más tarde quería mejorar el artículo del municipio con algún dato más. CHV (O mío Buzón de Correus) 19:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article told Municipaliry (Valle de Echo) that over the town (Echo), so I moved. Later I wanted to improve the Municipality's article. CHV (O mío Buzón de Correus) 19:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
OK. That makes sense. Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 26 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Whanganui

You appear to have forgotten to sign the close of the move discussion. You probably should do that. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Could you please clarify your opposition to topic ban Mathsci? Specifically these 2 questions:

  1. Did you give Mathsci a license to use WQA as a battleground (by importing unrelated disputes about uninvolved users) as he has here?
  2. Were you of the view that Mathsci is not the worst offender and should not be the first/only user sanctioned? Or were you of the view that everyone except Mathsci should take a break from the dispute? Or were you of some other view?

Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Where would you like me to clarify? I assume my talk page is not the right forum. Also, please note that your first question has framing issues (it is not neutrally expressed). --RegentsPark (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I know; it wasn't very clear either. If you're running short on time, clarifying it either here (where I can grab a diff), or at the WQA, or at the ANI, would work, though if you do have time, the last comment in this exchange should provide more background behind what it is I'd like. Sorry if it is unclear!! :S Time is not my asset nowadays. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on question 1 :) The way I see it, mathsci is seeing a serious problem of neutrality in the articles in question and, it is his/her observation that a group of SPA editors are at the root of the problem. He has been bringing this to the attention of the community (principally at ANI) and has been getting a vague endorsement of his views with no actionable suggestions. In that sense, there is nothing wrong with his/her bringing the matter up at various forums. Unlike you, I don't see him/her using WQA as a battleground - he/she raised a very specific etiquette issue (comment on the edits and not on the user is a useful adage). My view on who should be given a topic ban (I hesitate to use the word 'sanctioned') is expressed here. Hope this helps.--RegentsPark (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comments make sense, except we seem to disagree on how this should be approached. WQA is designed as a preliminary step in dealing with incivility (this is effectively spelled out at the top of the WQA page) - it's not as a step for seeking blocks for incivility or for mediating long-term ongoing conflicts of this nature (especially if they are already at ANI; admins are expected to handle civility issues that occur at ANI). If all he's getting at ANI is vague endorsement, running to WQA in particular is foolish because it is far less equipped than ANI for the purposes of bringing about NPOV to an article - unless you are aware of WQAs that have proved otherwise (i.e. WQAs that have accomplished a more favourable outcome for the encyclopedia on the topic of tendentious SPAs when ANI has failed; I'm not aware of any). In such circumstances, the views of 'both sides are wrong' that have been expressed at WQA have been entirely predictable. On a side note, the battleground mentality I refer to is specifically in relation to the first sentence he writes (see the diff in Q1) - it's not really in relation to his comments re: the mediator/SPAs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see this the same way you do but no worries. The larger issue here, the SPAs on articles (not just this set of SPAs but the niches that SPAs are carving out on wikipedia) is much more concerning. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Liam Hemsworth

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

03:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: William Tecumseh Sherman

RegentsPark: You're the boss. As I said, though, Grant and Lincoln are indefinitely semi-protected, and I think this should be too. I think it is a terrible waste of time and resources to allow a lead page like this to be vandalized so easily and watchers to have to be so vigilant. But thanks for your intermediate step of blocking a user. I was suprised to see vandalism from an identified user, but I suppose the person has multiple accounts. Hartfelt (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I kind of think you'll be right and we'll have to indef the article - but figured it was worth a shot keeping it open for a bit. I've got it on my watch list as well. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark: Just writing to note that the vandalism continues apace in the Sherman article. I think it is a waste of Misplaced Pages's money/computer space and of contributor time to allow this. I really think, as you know, that this article shld have the same indefinite semi-protection that the Lincoln and Grant articles have. Please let me know if the time is right to renew my protection request formally. Thank you. Hartfelt (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You can go ahead and renew your protection request. I don't think the vandalism is high but there is some so it's a judgement call. I'll leave it to some other admin to make that call! Thank you for your patience! --RegentsPark (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark: In light of your May 22 response, I held off requesting semi-protection, but today's stupidness pushed me over the edge. I confess that I do not understand why vandals are given such leeway while those who contribute constructively and care about an important (featured) article are forced to monitor the article all the time to try to keep it up to snuff. This is rather pushing me away from the Wikipdeia community. Hartfelt (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Adding a sign-in requirement raises the editing bar a bit (it is onerous to expect someone to create an account to do just one edit - that, for example, is how I did my first edit). If we semi-protect too many pages, this'll become an encyclopedia that only a few will edit (those who bother to get an account). For these reasons, we need to balance vandalism with openness and often the balance point is not well-defined. I'm sorry that you feel that the load on you is unnecessarily heavy but there are good reasons for that and I personally would rather err on the side of openness. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark: Thank you for your response and perspective. I will try to bear it in mind. Hartfelt (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 3 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Tasty, huh?

A3RO 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. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} 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}}!

as I agree with your thoughts left on Tan's talk page. --A3RO (mailbox) 20:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That was the silliest series of blocks I've seen in a while. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tigres de la UANL

There is a least two user to move the page to un-popular name and non-exit name. The most famous one is Kaka12o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who often use cut and paste move and move them to un-popular title, and he had socketpuppet of Kaka12 (talk · contribs) and many other (i did not count, but named Kaka11 or something). 210.6.121.21 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it does seem that this is the common name if not the official one. However, I don't want to preemptively protect it without discussion so let me know if the article gets moved. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC):

But the "official" name is totally un-sourced and the users keep on move to a unsourced or even not exist name. Likes Tigres de la UANL was moved to C.D. Universitario de Nuevo León but the university name is Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. Common name with reliable source and claimed "Official" name without source, i prefer the former.

But the users is crazy and prefer latter and moved again and again to his name he remember or seems remembered. Another case is Club Atlas and Club América they were had reliable source supported and crazy users keep on move to new name that had no source to support or (Atlas was moved from CF Atlas to fútbol Club Atlas then Futbol Club Atlas but the fact is the name is Club Atlas and went wrong for years. "Club América" was moved to CF América but the officialsite of the club just called himself "Club América" Look at the damm log of crazy move Matthew_hk tc 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just let me know if the page is moved. We'll take it from there. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Andrews

Regarding the move request, I didn't move the page, but somebody else did. That person didn't close the request, so I've just done it (as the template displayed a request to that effect). That person also didn't clean up the incoming links, so I'm just doing it now. As for 'refactoring' it, if that means that the move request template itself is to be removed, then that's what I've done as part of closing it. If you mean something else, I don't know what it is that you are talking about. Schwede66 18:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone else moved it then no worries. I thought you had proposed the request and then moved it yourself. In which case, you should just drop a note explaining why the move is a good one and not bother with a move request. But, I guess I was wrong. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Bronx

Noble move; I agree to let it rest. Thanks, Good Ol’factory 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I figured we're both on the same side - wikipedia! :) --RegentsPark (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What we learn from wikipedia ...

Sikh extremism has grown since the 1990s, with Canada being its center-of-gravity. ( more). Abecedare (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just imagine the term papers being written based on the article - the mind boggles! --RegentsPark (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 10 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Harman

Thank you, your work is appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. (For the thanks!) --RegentsPark (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

RPP decline

Hello, can you please reconsider or explain your decline here? This is a well-known case; we've had dozens of incidents of the same type with this user over the last few months. He is on a dynamic ISP, if you block one IP he will just hop to the next. He doesn't care about blocks or about breaking 3RR, because he's indef-blocked anyway. He will never stop reverting, out of sheer spite, until a page is semi-protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I only see 71.172.192.37 in the last few days. If the IP starts shifting, then a semi may be appropriate. Since I don't know the details of the case, this is the best I can do but feel free to semi-protect if you have better information. I won't be offended. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm unfortunately barred from taking admin action here myself by an exceedingly stupid Arbcom rule. But I really don't see what good it would do to wait until he's actually shifting IPs. He's a banned user (clearly known behavioural profile and ISP range, absolutely certain), he's edit-warring, he should be stopped. Of course, you could try a block of this one IP first and hope he'll heed it and refrain from hopping. But he won't, I can tell you that right away, from months of experience with dozens of incidents on dozens of articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Misplaced Pages Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan
Last: 03/21/2010
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Misplaced Pages Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your request

Hello. I assume that your request on ANI was for the subpage to be archived. That does not seem to have happened. Is it possible for you to get an uninvolved administrator to do so? Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Mathsci (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie - Req

Pls have a look at the rev history of Salman Rushdie. feels like its protection level must be upped. thanks. Arjun 11:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave it three days. Let's see if they go away. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Arjun 14:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

.. the great.

As you moved Ashoka the great to Ashoka; i would like to invite your attention; to check whether the same rationale applies for Akbar.Rgs.Arjun 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved. Thanks - I'd forgotten about the discussion on this. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 17 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 17:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mootros (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Email from TM

I've sent you email. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
And back atcha (if these user page notes aren't needed, let me know; all my WikiMail gets forwarded to my main "real" email address, so I don't need them, but one is never sure about everyone else's here). — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Not necessary. I watch my email fairly closely! --RegentsPark (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate tagging

When I was discussing Mathsci’s possible misuse of tags with you on the talk page for the Snyderman and Rothman article, you explained under what circumstances it’s appropriate to remove these tags:

“Generally, it is better to give the tagger a couple of days to add a rationale on the talk page. If no rationale is added, you can then delete the tag. If the tag is repeatedly added without explanation, then you can alert the WP:AN3 noticeboard.’

Six days after Mathsci had tagged the Mainstream Science on Intelligence article, he still hadn’t provided any rationale for the tags on its talk page, so I removed them. Mathsci immediately added them back, still without providing any rationale, except to say in his edit summary that there’s “still a dispute”. There haven’t been any comments on this article’s talk page, dispute or otherwise, in over six months.

I’d rather not keep removing the tags myself, because when I tried this on the Snyderman and Rothman article Mathsci just keep edit warring to add them back. He also tends to threaten me with being blocked whenever I revert any of his edits, which is annoying. Now that you’ve explained what behavior is and isn’t appropriate while tagging articles, and it’s clear that this situation falls into latter category, is there anything you can do about it? --Captain Occam (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I dropped a note on mathsci's talk page. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 14:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mootros (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Move reqs.

  • Can u please have a look at this and do the needful.

Thanks You for your time. Arjun 07:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. I guess I missed this. Will take a look. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Institute for Policy Studies

Do you think it's safe to unprotect now? NW (Talk) 22:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected. Let's see. (thanks for the reminder!) --RegentsPark (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 24 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Lost Symbol

Hi, I noticed no one ever acted on the request for unprotection and the admin didn't comment further. It got auto-archived. Alio The Fool 20:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The admin's comment seemed to imply that he/she considers the six month protection to be warranted. I took a look at the page history again and there is a repeated attempt to insert a specific piece of information by a wandering IP over a period of a month. Noting that Nightscream has more experience with the article, and noting that I know nothing about the novel in question, I prefer to leave this at that admin's discretion. However, I will drop another note on the admin's talk page asking that he/she look at this conversational thread. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Rvcx (talk · contribs)

This user has made 228 content edits in his wikipedia life. I have no idea why has planted himself on WP:BLPN. Nor for that matter why he has reported me on WP:WQA for pointing his unfamiliarity with the way priimary souirces are used on WP> as you he has attempte his own analysis of Jensen's 1969 paper, which I said he was in no poisiton to do (like any other wikipedian). He has twice reverted the two articles History of the race and intelligence controversy and Mainstream Science on Intelligence. His edits and comments (eg about the eminence of Donald T. Campbell) show no awareness of wikipedia editing policies. He has claimed the content I was using was libellous. Please can something be domne to control this editor who is edit warring, forum shopping and appears not to be willing to invest any effort in reading secondary sources? he has made an incorrect judgement about a BLP violation. Edits that are just a little bit out of control and totally ill-informed? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)