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
Line 145: Line 145:
:I'll take a look. --[[User:RegentsPark|rgpk]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 16:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
:I'll take a look. --[[User:RegentsPark|rgpk]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 16:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
::Looks like spiff got there first. Problem solved. --[[User:RegentsPark|rgpk]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
::Looks like spiff got there first. Problem solved. --[[User:RegentsPark|rgpk]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Thanks, Moonriddengirl got there before Spiff. A swarm of admins, indeed! - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 16:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:15, 5 July 2011

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tree shaping and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Thunderbolt move declined

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

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

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

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

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

Notify Talk

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

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

unblock

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

Problem

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

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Unblock

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

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

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Proposed deletion of Hanseen Abdelnaby

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

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

USB/Universal Serial Bus

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

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

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

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

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

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

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

User:Paglakahinka

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

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

I'll take a look. --rgpk (comment) 16:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like spiff got there first. Problem solved. --rgpk (comment) 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Moonriddengirl got there before Spiff. A swarm of admins, indeed! - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark&oldid=437891855"