This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

It's not a request so I removed it. If the IP does it again, semi-protection of the talk page may be necessary (no point blocking the IP since it isn't static). Let me know.--regentspark (comment) 16:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I think that there is still a procedure for requesting edits even if both article and TP are semi'd, so all would not be lost. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There is. Of course, the IP could merely start posting the entire text at WP:RFED - where will that leave us! --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. Persistent or what? - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-ed for one month. Hopefully that'll do the trick. --regentspark (comment) 12:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

JmaJeremy's description of the other Concordia Universities was compelling (the last paragraph in the discussion) and that, along with the stats (that the Montreal entity gets more hits than any other single entity) is fairly conclusive as a primary topic in my mind. Also, do note that there have been no comments for a while, relisting is usually a better move when there are either no reasonable opinions to consider or when the discussion is still ongoing. --regentspark (comment) 16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we have philosophical differences on when a discussion should be relisted, but I think WP:RM supports my interpretation: "If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the closer may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as 'no consensus'." Either of these outcomes seem like a better way to treat that discussion. The main reason that I'm unhappy with your decision is that I provided, I thought, a good chunk of objective information on this article's relative popularity compared to those of similarly titled articles, whereas editors opposed to the move made little to no substantive arguments. I see discussions of enrollment figures (irrelevant), Google Scholar citations (potentially of interest, but no numbers cited), and bare assertions of prominence. JmaJeremy's arguments about moving pages such as Boston, Montreal, and Vancouver into "DAM [sic] pages" suggest a poor grasp of the primary topic concept. I would suggest relisting for another week to allow consensus to develop. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page as to when a discussion should be relisted (though, perhaps, our differences are on whether this discussion should be relisted!). When there are reasonable opinions to consider, it is possible to determine consensus and that's what I saw. jmajeremy has provided compelling reasons and more than two weeks have passed without anyone providing evidence that his reasoning is based on incorrect assumptions. That's plenty of time in my opinion. --regentspark (comment) 17:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I suppose I didn't really make any responses to JmaJeremy myself, and I shouldn't fault you for that. I hope you'll consider changing the ruling to no consensus, however, which would better leave the door open for a fuller discussion. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --regentspark (comment) 20:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad we were able to come to an agreement. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

	The Ten Dollar Barnstar
	For making musical history in this memorable performance of the song, I, Fowler&fowler«Talk», award RegentsPark this barnstar. 22:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Gratuitous, I know, but couldn't resist the temptation :) --regentspark (comment) 09:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed it. It lightened the mood. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

No offense meant and apologies if any taken. You have to admit that your refusal to see the writing on the wall does leave you open to some (gentle) ribbing! --regentspark (comment) 15:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I would have got rid of it if you'd asked! (I've collapsed the digression). --regentspark (comment) 15:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your generosity. And, I would have made the collapse boxes shorter if you had asked me too! My beef is not with you, RP and I think you're fairly neutral (there is not sarcasm in there) and reasonable to an acceptable level. Cheers, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I really shouldn't have made that joke. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I'm a little busy today so apologies in advance for the short response. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say above. That caste is an integral part of Hinduism as it is practiced is not really an issue. I'm not sure what theology has to do with that. The problem with the article now is that it tries to underplay the Hindu nature of caste and that creates all sorts of problems. It makes it harder, for example, to discuss the recent gains in reducing caste-based discrimination in India. It also makes it harder to talk about caste based politics, the demands for quotas, all that sort of thing. Caste based discrimination in India is no longer as simple and straightforward as it was in Mulk Raj Anand's days (though that sort of discrimination is still rampant) because everyone in India, whatever their background, has become savvy about advocacy for their group. The article should be about caste in Hinduism, the competing theories of its origins, the reality of its existence in everyday life, the discrimination that it results in, the progress made in reducing that discrimination since 1947, and the rise of advocacy amongst the "lower" castes. Then, an additional section that deals with parallels that have been drawn between the Hindu caste system and other social divisions amongst other peoples is warranted. --regentspark (comment) 14:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope I am clear now. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Better to discuss this on Talk:Caste. I can see that you're worried about the way the discussion will go but 'at topic' discussions are always better. We can decide things here but none of that will fly if there isn't consensus on the article talk page. Bear in mind that all editors approach these discussions in good faith, even when their views are not the same as yours, and consensus has to come out of these different views (properly grounded in reliable sources and appropriately weighted of course!). --regentspark (comment) 12:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Closed again. I see no percentage in arbcom or more drama but let's see. --regentspark (comment) 20:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Although you are not mentioned by name, please note that the thread above has now been mentioned at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Primary_source_at_Aurangzeb. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Commented there. --regentspark (comment) 12:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Forget the above. I suddenly realised what had happened and am fixing. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. If it hasn't already been prod-ed, it should be. --regentspark (comment) 12:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Technically, you have already received a third opinion but if you want another opinion, I am fine with that. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You should really post this on WP:3O or, better still, on WP:DRN since there are three editors involved. I don't have the time to look at it today but, generally, if an editor removes a B class tag from the article it is in incumbent on that editor to explain why. Not sure if that's been done here. --regentspark (comment) 23:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look and, cursorily, I'd say it likely isn't yet a B. Though the bar is fairly low for a B-class article, the content in this article is fairly sketchy and needs to be further fleshed out (for example, with a 101 year history we'd expect something interesting must have happened sometime(!), and there are a few references missing. Perhaps that is the way it is with this police department but that's my, admittedly cursory, impression. --regentspark (comment) 00:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Don't give up. I searched "Long Beach Police" on The New York Times site and found plenty of good stuff including a rum plot (during prohibition I guess). You just have to look for references in the right places. --regentspark (comment) 01:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised ECF hasn't linked the discussion/s yet. RegentsPark; you can find a discussion here and here. In my mind, this isn't a content dispute, just neglect to fix the problems he volunteered to have assessed. No, EFC, is not required to do anything to this article, but work needs to be done on it if he would like it to get to a higher level. EFC, since this is now a "content dispute" it might not be best for you to be reverting an edit when there is this open discussion without discussing (if we don't discuss, this is going to go nowhere). I ask that you address this problem that you say is covered. If the sentence is supported by a source, then support it with a reference, don't just leave it to look unsourced! :D -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you have received more than a third/four opinion on this. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you guys for all of your help. I'm a bit stressed out from this dispute, so I'll be taking a Wikibreak. By the way, it's separate from the California LBPD (article), which is larger and has more information on it. Thank you. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Hi, I post this here because I can see you are clearly acting/speaking in good faith. I admit when you supported Kauffner counter majority in the 3-1 on the Talk:Bun cha RM I was scratching my head about how an admin would uphold a move which had been accomplished by disruption of BRD, i.e. by edit-locking the redirect, BOLD-LOCK-. Now I see that you were unaware that BRD had been deliberately circumvented, which explains better your close. Perhaps you might wish to check the archives and refer to previous ANI (or was it Arbcom?) ruling on the Dolovis case of disruption of BRD and perhaps compare the 100s of Dolovis redirect edits with the 100s of Kauffner redirect edits and then adjust your statement related to BRD. (also FYI group page RMs have been specifically requested by several admins in this area). Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I have a hazy memory of that one. Looking at the RM discussion, I can see that my close was based on usage in English language sources which was based on the evidence given by Kauffner (and not refuted on the move request). Still seems reasonable to me. I'm personally not hidebound either way on diacritics, they should be used when English language sources use them, not used when English language sources don't use them, and we should defer to local usage when English language sources are not in agreement. But, I'm not really aware of the history between you and Kauffner so let's see what the ANI report brings out. regentspark (comment) 01:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, that's okay, closing admins will sometimes go against the supports on the RM, I accept that. Though I'm not quite sure what you mean that evidence was "not refuted" since AjaxSmack posted physical scans of Amazon LOOK from an English language cookbook showing that cookbooks enabled to use Vietnamese fonts do spell this with Vietnamese. Kauffner only provided evidence that sources which aren't enabled don't - but on that logic even François Mitterand would have his name anglicised, see Talk:François_Mitterrand#Requested_move. Normally citing a majority of diacritic-disabled sources is not how these RMs are decided, so AjaxSmack's refutation was well within the frame of normal RM activity in this area. That's just FYI, it's irrelevant now, and I'm not making an issue of the RM close; the issue is the BRD lock.

Do you mind if I ask, have you ever encountered a BRD lock of this sort before? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see that that is a disingenuous way of preventing non-admins from reversing a move. If there is a pattern of doing this then we do have a problem. regentspark (comment) 13:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is not that common, which is probably why none of us spotted it. The only precedent I'm aware of is Dolovis. However typically locking a redirect to prevent WP:BRD generates an edit summary ‎ "(added Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics using HotCat)" so a pattern of 100s of undiscussed moves and locks is verifiable. Even then I wasn't aware of those Duke of Narbonne, etc, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] locks which User Jack Bufalo Head listed. Anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• then we should ban both per PBS, but I don't really like that option. Banning Kauffner alone is a terrible idea. --regentspark (comment) 1

Regentspark.

I think on the basis of the above I am entitled to ask you the same question I asked PBS: Have you ever reverted an undiscussed move counter an RM result?

Please do me the courtesy as one editor to another to address this. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you mean have I ever reverted an undiscussed move when someone else has objected, then the answer is I don't know. But, if anyone asks I'll be happy to do just that, other things being equal of course. --regentspark (comment) 17:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, I mean have you ever reverted an undiscussed move countrary to an RM result. Sorry, lets pick an example. the multiple move at Daśāvatāra - which I note you closed. Let's say that 2 weeks after the RM close, someone did an undiscussed move contrary to the close and in this case moved Bhattikavya → Bhaṭṭikāvya counter RM result, would you restore it back to consistency with the RM result? That's the question. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking whether I'd move an article from title X to title Y after an RM discussion has decided that article Y is the consensus title and two weeks later someone moved it to X anyway, the answer is an almost certain yes. I believe I've reverted such RM moves in the past. Not sure why you're asking this question, if you're leading up to something then perhaps it is a better idea to get to the point directly.--regentspark (comment) 17:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I misread that at first - excuse if it caused an edit conflict - okay, that's good, then you would have made exactly the same reverts as I did. No problem. But you wouldn't ban yourself for it I guess :) In ictu oculi (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between a disinterested admin action and, for want of a better descriptor, an agenda driven action, Let's just say that if I were selectively reverting only one type of move, to take a - purely pulled out of a hat - random example, if I only reverted back from article titles with diacritics to articles without diacritics, then I would consider banning myself :) --regentspark (comment) 18:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahah, you think? We're none of us disinterested and all have views. From your comments it seems you have one interpretation of diacritics, while the majority of wp editors (judging by where articles actually are) have another - if you didn't realise that, then find a Lithuanian/Latvian/Finnish/Estonian/Polish/Czech/Turkish/Maltese/Serbian.... even French/German article that is where majority of English sources have it. English sources only barely support even Charlotte Brontë. But that's another issue for another day. But the bottom line is that reverting a move counter a RM is reverting a move counter a RM, you've done it, I've done it. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it that way but you're welcome to your interpretation. Regardless, as I say on ANI, I don't believe either of you should be banned. The diacritic/non-diacritic is an interesting one because editors on both sides have a strong case - banning is not the way to sort our way through the issue. --regentspark (comment) 18:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey again. Well, where article titles are (i.e. at diacritics flying in the face of majority sources) is not really interpretation is it, not unless you can find one modern European bio (apart from the 9 anglicized tennis players obviously) that doesn't contradict the guidelines - if you can I'd be interested to see it. As far as banning, since I said 2 weeks ago I won't be restoring any more of the 800x moves counter RM (and even if I wanted to they are locked). As for Kauffner, well he'll either stop or he won't, someone should ask him.

On another totally unrelated note. I see you started the Kalaymyo article. Ever been there? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. Got as far as Monywa but couldn't get to go beyond. This was a long time ago when travel in Burma was not, um, easy. --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is even now? I was there in early-mid 90s, wonderful unspoilt place (then) but morning mist landing at military landing strip was one of the scariest experiences ever had in the air. I'm not sure all our en.wp content regarding Mizo/Zomi language is accurate. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. You endorsed a closure of the RfC regarding internal consistency on the MoS. However, the top text [11] refers to closer kwami, but your own words refer to closer Nathan. These two people came to opposite decisions regarding whether there was consensus for action. Which closure were you endorsing? This may seem picayune to you, but on WT:MoS people can and do fight down to the last comma. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Aaaand now we're doing just that. I hope this doesn't put you off touching the manual of style, but your input would be appreciated on WT:MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I had endorsed Nathan Johnson's closure. Noetica reverted it back to kwami's. Oh, the irony! Let me take a look and see if there is anything for me to do here. --regentspark (comment) 15:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for braving the fires of the MoS page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying I never reverted your (RegentsPark's) closure; a statement to that effect was a misunderstanding since cleared. That is one of the few things everybody agrees on in that thread, but in the tangled discussion might be hard to spot. I think I will stay out of the fire; want to get back to real editing instead of meta talk. Churn and change (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi RegentsPark, I also want to thank you for taking the time to re-close the RfC. Noetica reverted Darkfrog's attempt to implement the conclusion of the RfC. Beeblebrox then protected the page on Noetica's version, so I have asked Beeblebrox to unprotect so that the RfC conclusion can be implemented, or to make the edit himself if he feels page protection is needed. Just letting you know as a matter of courtesy. Many thanks again for your help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be starting the voting process? --Anbu121 (talk me) 20:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should. Are we ready (categorization etc.)? I dropped a note on fowler's page (was hoping you were watching it).--regentspark (comment) 20:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I just now finished the categorization for the remaining 4 images. --Anbu121 (talk me) 20:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I have made a table for voting. Is that fine? --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me take a look at what we've done in the past. --regentspark (comment) 21:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine. The only issue is the length of the table (it wraps around on my browser) but that's not too bad. --regentspark (comment) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Should we invite the major contributors of the article? --Anbu121 (talk me) 04:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. We should invite the people who commented or added images as well as drop a note at WT:IN. I'll do the latter, could you do the personal invites? Also, I'll extend the voting period to November 15. No need to hurry!--regentspark (comment) 13:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, why don't you also post a note on the WT:IN page. It's probably better if you take the lead on this. Are you ok with that? --regentspark (comment) 13:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I recently moved a blatant case of article-on-a-userpage, related to the Pooja Welling palaver. I've found a completely different instance and have been discussing it at User_talk:OrangesRyellow#Article_drafts_on_user_pages. While not quite a blatant, it still seems to be inappropriate and the proffered explanation is exactly what sandboxes are for. However, I don't want to act like an admin when I am not & subsequent to me raising the point, the user got involved with me at WT:INB on a seemingly unrelated issue. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

moved. --regentspark (comment) 13:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi - OrangesRyellow has taken this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pakistani POV eds deleting my userpage. GiantSnowman 14:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at SpacemanSpiff's talk page.
Message added 15:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

follow on to our discussion on Fowler's tp —SpacemanSpiff 15:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask you to revert yourself on the MOS? There is clearly no consensus there, and there are irregularities with the RfC that include at least the appearance of dishonesty on the part of the proposer, such as claiming she was unfamiliar with the MOS, when this was her own wording which had been deleted a year ago, being reverted on a BOLD edit and then expecting consensus to override her edit rather than to support her, etc – consensus is required to make changes to policy and guidelines, not to revert them. — kwami (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't do that kwami. Sorry. It is better to let consensus from an RfC stand. If you believe that the original RfC was flawed, then there are ways to deal with it. In this case, it seems to me you'll need to take it to arbitration and that may actually be the fastest way to resolve it given the polarization on WT:MOS. Arbs are better suited to decide on things like the timeline of changes and which version more accurately reflects whatever the current consensus is. I actually think it is a good idea to take this to the arbs because it is better settled definitely one way or the other. Actions taken by me or by other admins are unlikely to end this discussion. --regentspark (comment) 20:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 22:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, regentspark. After your involvement on the Short (finance) article in September, I've made another suggestion for the article, specifically a partial re-organization of some sections. I first posted it on Talk:Short (finance) last week, but so far have had no takers. Would you be willing to take a look at it? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look; I made an edit to my draft based on your point re: the ban just being in selected securities, and replied there. Did you have any comments on my proposed Regulations section? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you and other administrators unwilling to enforce our policies?--MONGO 21:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

MONGO, there is more than enough drama as it is. Let the Malleus imbroglio shake itself out, no sense in adding to it. --regentspark (comment) 21:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay..I know, but this really wasn't about Malleus it was about John, though John was defending him based on his belief that I had spread some falsehoods...I provided diffs to back up my claims and John continued to insult me.--MONGO 22:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Errant has warned John. That's probably the best place to leave it. --regentspark (comment) 22:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed your proposed motion, as only arbitrators may propose motions. If you wish to suggest a way forward to the arbitrators, I suggest you add to your statement instead. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it fairly obvious that I already knew that. But, whatever. --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I no longer consider myself a Wikipedian, I want you to know think your motion more sensible than Arbcom's recent output. pablo 14:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd invite you to show that the people there speak for the "community", (90% of the people who don't give a damn about AN/ANI/RFC/ArbCom, but just want to improve the encyclopedia). Not to mention the fact the ongoing RFC on CE states by more then a 3-1 basis currently that YES, Civility does matter and should be enforced. We've given Malleus numerous attempts to walk back his statement, that he'd be a coward if he didn't call people "dishonest twats". I don't care what kind of environment he comes from where this is normal and expected (as some have stated), we're working with people all over the world. I even said to him "If you promise to try to do things better, we'll understand occasional slippages". He refused that. He's not going to change his behavior for anything, and would rather retire or be banned then change. I'm sorry folks disagree, but being an Arb is not a popularity contest. We are elected to enforce Wikipedia's norms and policies. Chief of which are the [[WP:5}P|Five Pillars]]. SirFozzie (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry SirFozzie but you're getting way ahead of yourself. You're not the Supreme Court of the United States of America. You're just a bunch of guys elected to deal with situations when the community can't figure out what to do. In this case, one look at the arbcom page tells me that the community knows exactly what not to do. Apologies, but that's the way I see it. --regentspark (comment) 23:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Where does that claim about five pillars being "chief" among Wikipedia's norms and policies come from? Is this something the community decided, or an edict of Wales or Sanger or does it come from the Wikimedia Foundation or is it a decree of Arbcom? The page itself doesn't seem clear on what it's supposed to be - essay, guideline or policy. The FAQ on the talk page describes it as "a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles, begun by User:Neutrality in 2005 as a simple introduction for new users" (but I don't know how much support the FAQ has any more than I do the main page). When and how did it achieve chiefdom among norms and policies? 46.31.204.63 (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You should leave it there, just for the record - to illustrate the obviously simple solution that appears to be beyond the understanding of the arbs. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. My bet, especially given the current levels of competence, is that it has just been missed among the noise. I wonder if there is some way of ensuring that at least one arb has seen it, without being accused of canvassing etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, someone could always reinsert it as a motion :) --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have pung a clerk, the one who removed it in the first place. Perhaps they can all e-mail and IRC each other about it a bit now if they haven't already. pablo 19:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

and lo! and befuckinghold. pablo 20:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong in the edit summary here here. Lots of people do care. They care a lot. In fact is, ironically and sadly, that caring is much of the source of the frustration which leads to anger which leads to the so called drama. Simply put, we, as a community, have never come to a consensus on what "respect other editors" means. Nobody Ent 19:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Echo that. pablo 20:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was the arbs don't care. They don't like Malleus (not very hard that!) and would be happy to see him go and probably figure that most of the editors on forced wikibreak won't stay away very long (if, at all, that matters). Even Brad is hiding behind an entirely unnecessary recuse when he could easily come in with a more sensible motion. --regentspark (comment) 20:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am on the verge of 3RR. Can you give me hand here --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You joined the Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, which is being discussed at its entry at Categories nominated for deletion.

You may wish to join the category Category:Wikipedians working towards even enforcement of civility.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nah. Doesn't have the same panache. Too boring :) --regentspark (comment) 15:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

When in Rome.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Then, blessing all, 'Go, children of my care!

To practice now from theory repair. 580

All my commands are easy, short, and full:

My sons! be proud, be selfish, and be dull.

Guard my prerogative, assert my throne:

This nod confirms each privilege your own.

— Alexander Pope, The Dunciad

Can you have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Copy_pasting_same.2Fsimilar_information_in_a_bunch_of_articles.21 ? --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Things are a mess where I am so can't really do it myself but you this is definitely indiscriminate content. Revert, drop a note on the editor's talk page and escalate warnings if necessary. --regentspark (comment) 20:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi regentspark, if you happen to be around, I'd like to point you to something new on the Short (finance) page, where an unregistered IP editor in France has been deleting significant parts of the article, while adding in a long, thinly sourced, arguably unencyclopedic discussion of the pros and cons of restricting short-selling. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is also heavily weighted toward the EU and France in particular. Another editor (L2blackbelt) had previously reverted similar changes this week, although that editor seems to contribute only occasionally. For your convenience, here's L2blackbelt's rollback and here's the IP editor's latest. I've made a elsewhere, so if it's answered I'll follow up to say so. If that hasn't happened yet, would you be willing to roll this back again? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like SPECIFICO just got to it. Meanwhile, my Talk page request from last month (about a partial reorganization) is still open, if you're willing to look at it. I appreciated your feedback, although nothing further has happened sense. Here's the link again, in case you find the time to revisit. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And now someone else has completed that request, sorry to bother! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Should we extend or close? --Anbu121 (talk me) 03:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and close it. 15 November was the posted deadline and there are more than enough votes.--regentspark (comment) 15:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you do it yourself. I am traveling for the past 1 week and I don't have proper internet access. (this edit from mobile) --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't. Too much rl stuff till the end of next week. No worries if it stays open a bit longer though. --regentspark (comment) 19:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

We have got a tie in the agriculture category. --Anbu121 (talk me) 20:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Two out of EE2, AE1 and CE12? --regentspark (comment) 04:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Anbu121 (talk me)

All three are pretty good though EE2 may have the least resolution. Easiest is to just pick 2 and go with it. We can deal with it if someone objects down the road. As the person doing the work, you get some privileges! --regentspark (comment) 23:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

thinking some more
Thank you for quality contributions to articles on India and Pakistan, such as Jinnah, for switching from oppose after thinking some more, for mediation and for offering to serve arbitration, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 03:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Very pleased to see you in the mix. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see myself as fitting the 'electability' profile but I figured it's better than sitting around complaining :) --regentspark (comment) 14:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Where do I go to vote for you? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks DS, appreciate the confidence. I believe you have to wait till Monday when a vote button should automatically appear when you pull up your watch list. --regentspark (comment) 17:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wtf, I came to look at your ACE guide and find you as part of the guides! You're a better man than I am if you're ready to commit to fixing instead of quitting, but I digress. Good luck though. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can't fight 'em ... :) --regentspark (comment) 04:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'll second that — I can pretty much guarantee a support from yours truly. I love the answers you've given to the questions and even if I may disagree with you every now and then, I know I can trust you to think things over carefully before acting. Kurtis (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks Kurtis. --regentspark (comment) 21:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. Thanks for letting me know. --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Responded. Also left a note on the questionnaire talk page. --regentspark (comment) 14:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that favorable response. I hope the effort produces good results, I'm sure it will benefit with more people involved. Again, thanks. My76Strat (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)