User talk:RegentsPark: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎chosen one :P: new section
Line 223: Line 223:
[[User:Neelix|Neelix]] ([[User talk:Neelix|talk]]) 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
[[User:Neelix|Neelix]] ([[User talk:Neelix|talk]]) 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:You're welcome. Sometimes I just have to shake my head in wonder over oppose !votes! Happy editing to you too. --[[User:RegentsPark|rgpk]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 22:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:You're welcome. Sometimes I just have to shake my head in wonder over oppose !votes! Happy editing to you too. --[[User:RegentsPark|rgpk]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 22:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

== chosen one :P ==

Hey,
[[Talk:India]] is a nice playground for a
# a particular [[British Empire]] [[apologist]]
# a particular [[famine]] theorist
# a wrong page "discussionist" (n00b)

Clear the air there... as you have in the past!

Revision as of 16:49, 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my Comments

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

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject Novels initiative

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

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

Michael Wamalwa Kijana

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

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

Roll bender move

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

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

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Re: Jatt Sikh

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

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Tibet 3O

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

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

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my talk page now deleted?

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

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

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February

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

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

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zuggernaut

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

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

RM close of Oona King

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

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

Request for a response

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

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

Please add any..

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

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

Uncle Sam

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

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

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)

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

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

thanks

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

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

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Peer Review Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

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

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

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

March 2011

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

Thanks for your support!

Hi Regents Park,

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

Happy editing,

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

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

chosen one :P

Hey, Talk:India is a nice playground for a

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

Clear the air there... as you have in the past!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark&oldid=417624066"