User talk:RegentsPark: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:07, 11 August 2010 editRegentsPark (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,758 edits →Ken Buck: re notability of politicians← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:44, 22 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,907 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 43) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	{{Archive box\|
			\|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
	*] <small>(2008-01-08 → 2008-05-20)</small>
			\|maxarchivesize = 70K
	*] <small>(2008-05-20 → 2008-06-16)</small>
			\|counter = 43
	*] <small>(2008-06-17 → 2008-07-31)</small>
			\|minthreadsleft = 0
	*] <small>(2008-08-01 → 2009-02-27)</small>
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	*] <small>(2009-02-28 → 2009-07-14)</small>
			\|algo = old(30d)
	*] <small>(2009-07-14 → 2009-08-22)</small>
			\|archive = User talk:RegentsPark/Archive %(counter)d
	*] <small>(2009-08-22 → 2009-12-18)</small>
	*] <small>(2009-12-18 → 2010-05-29)</small>
	}}		}}
			{{Wikibreak\|image = Walking tree.jpg \|message = I'm busy in RL and may not be able to respond swiftly to queries}}
			{{archive box\|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]}}
			{{clear}}

			== IP-range sock is back ==
	== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 31 May 2010 ==

			Seems like the IP-sock of ] is back . I got a notification from {{u\|Narky Blert}}. I'd like to request PP for these two articles , . Regards. - ] (]) 12:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
			:Seconded. This guy is an absolute pest who wastes a lot of volunteer DABfixers' time and effort by introducing or reintroducing bad links, and has been known to remove {{tl\|dn}} tags without fixing the problem. ] (]) 15:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
			::IP sock is . - ] (]) 17:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	\| 1 = 2010-05-31
			:::Another sock IP - . Have a look. - ] (]) 12:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	\| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 22
			::::{{ping\|Fylindfotberserk}} Just saw this. Let me know if this is still an issue. Also, I'm not getting email notifications when someone edits my talk page. I wonder why? ] <small>(])</small> 17:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	\| 3 = 2010-05-24
			:::::Actually found a new one while going through the last IP's edits , reverted them in one article . - ] (]) 18:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	\| 4 = 2010-06-07
	}}}}
	</div>
	<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 22:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)</div>
	<!-- EdwardsBot 0050 -->

			== Season's Greetings ==
	== Requested move of ] ==

			{\| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FFF7E6;"
	I have requested a move of ] to ]. You may wish to express your opinion on the talk page.
			\|rowspan="2" valign="right" \| ]
			\|rowspan="2" \|
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" \| '''Season's Greetings'''
			\|-
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| <blockquote>When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it." </blockquote>

			(Text on page 17 illustrated in the ] in ]'s ''Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers'', illustrated by ], London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.)
	== comment placement ==

			]] 04:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Your comment at is misplaced. Would you mind not putting it in the middle of the discussion between me and Yworo? Thanks? ] (]) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
			\|}
	:I see that someone has moved it. My apologies, the misplacement was inadvertent. --] (]) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
			:{{ping\|Fowler&fowler}} Thanks Fowler. Hope 2025 is a good year for you. "Full of things that have never been" but, hopefully, good things! ] <small>(])</small> 17:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thank you {{re\|RegentsPark}} for that nice quote from Rilke. I tried to find the fuller version and came up with (middle of the page): <blockquote> And now let us believe in a long year that is given to us, new, untouched, full of things that have never been, full of work that has never been done, full of tasks, claims, and demands; and let us see that we learn to take it without letting fall too much of what it has to bestow upon those who demand of it necessary, serious, and great things.</blockquote> but am having a hard time figuring out the end of that sentence. I wonder if you have the German version. It is been a long time since I passed my German requirement in graduate school by the skin of my teeth, but perhaps I could run it through Google translate and see if they come up with the same.
			::Regardless, thanks for the nice words. I too hope the coming year will bring some unexpected but pleasant things for all of us. ]] 21:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Or maybe {{re\|Joshua Jonathan\|Austronesier}} might have the original German source. ]] 21:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I once had the collected works in pocket-format, but got rid of it a couple of decades ago... ] - ] 04:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I still have the 6-vol. ] edition of Rilke's works in my shelf, however this hasn't the letters in it. The German original text floats around in several web pages and goes: {{tq\|Und nun wollen wir glauben an ein langes Jahr, das uns gegeben ist, neu, unberührt, voll nie gewesener Dinge, voll nie getaner Arbeit, voll Aufgabe, Anspruch und Zumutung; und wollen sehen, daß wirs nehmen lernen, ohne allzuviel fallen zu lassen von dem, was es zu vergeben hat, an die, die Notwendiges, Ernstes und Großes von ihm verlangen.}} (I've verified it by means of Google Books snippets.) Wish you all wonderful holidays! –] (]) 08:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Thank you {{re\|Austronesier}}. This exchange on Regents Park's page captures the spirit of my greeting card. It is a "rare privilege" indeed. The German text clarifies a little how it might be translated in simple English with the help of Google Translate: " in a long year that is given to us ... full of tasks, demands, and even unreasonable demands; and let us learn to accept them without letting go too much of what it has to give to those who demand the necessary, serious, and great things." It is not perfect, but it is at least in the form in which it can go into my ] ]] 11:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*A throwaway quote inspired this enjoyable exchange! Ah, the pleasures of Misplaced Pages! Unfortunately my German is limited to Nein andDas Boot and I'm forced to stick with English translations.] <small>(])</small> 17:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Happy Holidays ==
	==RfAr==
	Since you have commented at length on topic bans for SPAs active on race related articles, please see the current ]. Thanks, ] (]) 07:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
	:Thanks. I'll take a look next week (still traveling). --] (]) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

			<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]
	==RFAR Race and intelligence==

	An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].

			] (]) is wishing you ]! This greeting (and season) promotes ] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! <br />
	On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

			''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls\|Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''
	== Mayawati ==
			</div>] (]) 14:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Thank you {{ping\|LukeEmily}}. Best wishes for the holiday season to you and your loved ones and hope that 2025 turns out to be a great year! ] <small>(])</small> 16:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Happy New Year, RegentsPark! ==
	Regents Park hi. I have requested protection of Mayawati again. The edit warring is massive. Please assist. Thank you. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 17:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
			<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

			]]
	It's ok. Elockid did it. Thank you. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
			{{Paragraph break}}
	:I saw that. --] (]) 17:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
			{{Center\|{{resize\|179%\|''''']!'''''}}}}

			'''RegentsPark''',<br />Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable ], and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.
	== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 7 June 2010 ==
			<br />] (]) 01:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)<br /><br />

	<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
	\| 1 = 2010-06-07
	\| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 23
	\| 3 = 2010-05-31
	\| 4 = 2010-06-14
	}}}}
	</div>		</div>
			''{{resize\|88%\|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls\|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
	<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 12:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)</div>
			{{clear}}<!-- From template:Happy New Year fireworks --> ] (]) 01:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- EdwardsBot 0051 -->
			:Thanks {{ping\|Dympies}}, Happy New Year to you and your loved ones! --] <small>(])</small> 17:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Sat Jan 25: Misplaced Pages Day NYC 2025 ==
	== Move req ==

			{\|style="background: white; color: black; border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;"
	Pls see ] - uncontroversial. ''']''']
	:Isn't he better known as 'Rana Pratap'?--] (]) 19:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
	::Now, i am confused. I guess the request at the talk page must be given its due course.''']'''] 20:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

	== Nicola Blackwood ==

	Regents, would you please take a few minutes to look at the edit war, incivility fest, and all–around brawl that's going on at ]. I opined there, then warned both of them about personal attacks and they both just keep after it and ] about each other. Thanks, ] (]) 21:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
	:Interesting debate. But I see that it is protected so I guess I'm off the hook! --] (]) 02:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
	::Thanks, nonetheless, for taking a look. Regards, ] (]) 17:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

	== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 14 June 2010 ==

	<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
	\| 1 = 2010-06-14
	\| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 24
	\| 3 = 2010-06-07
	\| 4 = 2010-06-21
	}}}}
	</div>
	<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 21:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)</div>
	<!-- EdwardsBot 0052 -->

	== Hemant Karkare ==

	Can u pls have a look at the latest developments at ] - i strongly feel they are ]; more so sources furnished are twocircles.net, hardnewsmedia.com etc. Just thought you would be the ideal guy for this. ''']'''] 07:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
	:I've reverted those edits for the time being. --] (]) 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
	:: Hello I noticed you just removed an entire section from the Hemant Karkare page. It's a very hot and debatable top I agree, but labeling it as ] is ridiculous! Deleting rather than editing is not going to help. ] appears to have a ] and has been constantly deleting sections from the ] page, coming up with some new weird reason each time.
	::As for the sources, HardNewsMedia is the South Asian partner of Le Monde diplomatique, Paris, France.
	::TwoCircles.net - a very respectable news website based in USA.
	::IbnLive - CNN-IBN is a partnership between Global Broadcast News (GBN), a Network18 Company, and Turner International (Turner) in India. If you like I can provide more sources! ] (]) 18:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::My reason for deleting the content was not because of the sources. Rather, the material takes a few news stories (the IBN ones are more like opinions and the twocircles is an interview) and then constructs a 'controversy' section by stringing these together. That is both ] as well as ]. I don't know much about the topic itself but, if the death of Mr. Karkare is considered controversial, then there must be more reliable sources (articles in magazines or leading newspapers) that make the same points. I suggest focusing on those sources. --] (]) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

	===Fwd:sock-puppet===
	The following is a query from an anon i received ; I thought its better to forward it to you since i do not know really know anything about the sock puppet stuff.
	<div style="border:2px inset #222222;padding:4px;margin:1em;background-color:white;font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace; width:90%"><b>Sock puppetry on ]</b>

	The following users are probably sock puppets:
	*.
	*
	*
	They are edit-warring on the article in tandem. Perhaps you should file a sock puppetry report and also put a complaint at ].] (]) 23:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
	</div> ''']'''] 10:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

	:Thanks for looking after the fwdd query. ''']'''] 16:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Thanks for taking care of the move. ] (]) 17:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
	:You're welcome. --] (]) 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

	== Requested move: ] ==

	Hello RegentsPark. While I appreciate your help in moving things forward, you have closed a discussion on this page move, I feel, too hastily. Given the easily hundreds of hours that have gone into the discussion, just on the move itself, let alone during what clearly was a 3 year long battle on the page itself, it is difficult to imagine that you might have adequately considered, much less fully appreciated the depth of the issues discussed, in one hour of study for your closing. The reason I say this is that it took me almost 2 months to understand what had happened after I started working on that page this past April.

	One point that you have clearly not addressed is the fact that the phrase 'tree shaping', which was arbitrarily and capriciously chosen in the first place, off the discussion page and completely without consensus, is itself not at all neutral. Your closing explanation seems to conflate the trade name Pooktre, with the phrase used to re-title the page. Pooktre is an established trade name of the questionable editors. It is not at all generic, nor in common usage, and is thus not under any consideration as a title for the page. Clear consensus was already reached that the current page title is unsatisfactory. We have carefully and clearly documented, concerning the phrase 'tree shaping' that:
	:1. This phrase is being used inappropriately and not generically, by one pair of involved editor/author/artists, posting under a single user name, in a long and nasty campaign both on and off-wiki, to benefit themselves and disparage another editor/author/artist, and
	:2. This phrase is also, perversely enough, in well-entrenched common usage to describe a different subject: ], a point that was raised early on and had strong consensus.

	I do understand that it is entirely your option to re-list or not, and to move or not, based on the strength of the arguments for & against, but do you not think, given the consensuses that ''were'' reached by non-involved editors and also given that the discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, that relisting would have been more appropriate in this case?

	I agree with Martin Hogbin that a closing discussion is needed to reach further consensus. Without one that is satisfactory to all participating editors, and not just to the one involved editor who precipitated the original and very suspicious change, I feel that the editing atmosphere on that page is unlikely to improve and thus that the page itself is likely to suffer, not least in terms of content dilution. A page titled 'tree shaping' can no longer describe the specific and fascinating art that the article content presently describes (and which is and has been for many decades practiced by those artists detailed therein), but must instead also encompass fully all the myriad other arboricultural practices inherent in the actual activities of shaping trees. There would be no reason (or space) in such an article to include any of these inosculation artists, or their craft, at all. See? ] (]) 11:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

	:While I agree that the Requested Move should have been closed as no consensus, that seems clear, I do not think your move and subsequent protect of the article was the best representation of WP policy. I agree that Martin should have started a new RfM, but he felt being bold was the best course of action. I would remind you that the first article move was done in the same way with no discussion whatsoever, at least Martin had support for the move before he undertook it. I have listed my points on the ]. I hope you see fit to respond there. Thanks, ] (]) 02:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

	::Thanks for the headsup. I notice that there is an extended discussion and will respond later tonight (a tad busy in RL). --] (]) 19:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

	==Hemant Karkare==
	Hello,

	i strongly disagree with your removing of sourced material: there is a reliable source, in the form of a book (Who killed Karkare ?). Even if sockpuppets have shown up there, I was mainly responsible for the section. Please also note that the IP that asked for deletion (117.194.197.61)was probably a sockpuppet of indef banned user Hkelkar. For these reasons, I strongly demand you revert to my edited version. We can discuss and change it according to contradictory sources, but certainly not remove it. Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowra p; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;"> - <font face="sans-serif">] <sub>]</sub></font></span> 18:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	:While it may be ok to include a section on the controversy surrounding Mr. Karkare's death, the deleted version, which includes fringe allegations of Israeli conspiracies and unequivocal statements that say that he was not killed by the Mumbai terrorists is not tenable. Also, the length of the controversy section seems way undue. My suggestion is that you work on a toned down version of the section that does not overstate the controversy. I see no reason why that would not be acceptable. About the IP, I'm no expert on sockpuppets so I'll ask YellowMonkey to investigate. --] (]) 21:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
	::OK, agree. My intention was to put a "controversy section" much more acceptable, by just referring to the book and the news articles that appeared in Indoa on this matter. I was in the process in re-arrangement when these sockpuppets and IP showned up. So please let me edit the article in that direction. Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;"> - <font face="sans-serif">] <sub>]</sub></font></span> 09:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::Before any rash decisions are made, I should point out that it was ] who added the part about the Israelis fomenting religious riots in India (and then edit-warring in order to keep it in). the absurd and conspiratorial language suggests bad faith editing. Furthermore, some of his sources are highly dubious, , from a pro-] website masquerading as a non-partisan news source (compare what they say about ], to what more reliable sources say about him ).] (]) 17:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::Furthermore, here is a sample of the extremely conspiratorial rhetoric found in TwoHorned's "Flagship source", a book by an Islamist sympathizer titled "Who Killed Karkare?" Can a book containing this type of militant rhetoric be considered a ]?
	:::{{cquote\|The allegation that sections of and individual Indian Muslims indulged in “terrorism” surfaced for the first time with the ascent of the Hindutva forces in mid-1990s and became state policy with the BJP’s coming to power at the Centre. With even “secular” media joining the role as stenographers of security agencies, this became an accepted fact so much so that common Indians and even many Muslims started believing in this false propaganda.}}
	*{{cquote\|It comes out with some startling facts and analysis, the first of its kind, to expose the real actors behind the so-called “Islamic terrorism” in India whose greatest feat was to murder the Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare who dared to expose these forces and paid with his life for his courage and commitment to truth. While unearthing the conspiracy behind the murder of Karkare, this book takes a hard look at some of the major incidents attributed to “Islamic terrorism” in India and finds them baseless.}}
	*{{cquote\|Terror's Hindu Face: Todays's ie, 18th May 2010's Asian Age's Delhi Edition devotes a full page to the hitherto well hidden from the public gaze and long suppressed by the media, Hindu Terrorism.}}
	*{{cquote\|A new book curiously titled Who Killed Karkare? says a nationwide network of Hindutva terror that has its tentacles spread up to Nepal and Israel is out to destroy the India most Indians have known for ages and to remould it into some kind of Afghanistan under the Taliban.}}.] (]) 17:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Update: the sockpuppets who were attacking the article on ] have now shifted their attention to ].] (]) 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
	::::OK, besides the usual crap and personnal attacks typical of infdef banned user Hkelkar, please note that:
	::::*I didn't include the ref you're talking about.
	::::*The implication of israeli intelligence in the affair is not an invention of mine, but comes from the mentionned source book.
	::::*The controversy about the assination of 3 people, including Karkare, is something real in India.
	::::*There is a book and sourced material on it.
	::::For me, that's all about it. I do intent to reduce the size of the section, and put it in more regular form, but pretend that is "fringe conspiracy" is non-sense and pov, given the proportion that is affair has taken in India. And,btw, "pressure on journalists" is not something particular to India. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;"> - <font face="sans-serif">] <sub>]</sub></font></span> 08:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

	:TwoHorned is copy-pasting the same ] nonsense into multiple articles, like ] and ].] (]) 12:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
	:TwoHorned also appears to have a history of promoting ] conspiracy theories sources to dubious websites. See .] (]) 13:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
	::I'd bet the anti-semitic-neo-nazi bullshit would appear soon. Bingo, Hkelkar ! I'm surprised noone noticed the use of multiple IP to evade block and R3R, by the way. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;"> - <font face="sans-serif">] <sub>]</sub></font></span> 14:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

	(od) No one is going to take any hasty actions here. The material on Karkare needs to be thrashed out on the talk page of the ] article first, before it is inserted in other articles as well. I've protected ] as well until this is sorted out. 2008 Mumbai attacks also appears to be protected. Please sort this out on the talk page of Hemant Karkare before attempting to add this material to other articles. Regards. --] (]) 21:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
	:Please refer to . <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;"> - <font face="sans-serif">] <sub>]</sub></font></span> 22:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
	:Interesting discussion. If I'm reading it correctly, there isn't much support for the way you are using your sources? --] (]) 21:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

	Well, I would ask you to add in the Controversy section yourself, now that it is recognized even by leading journalists like Vir Sanghvi:
	''Now it transpires that even Karkare could have been saved. People have always wondered how the bullets penetrated the bullet-proof jacket he was wearing. The Bombay Police responded by saying that a) he was shot in the neck so the jacket was no protection, b) that the jacket was perfectly good but c) the file pertaining to its purchase had been lost and d) even the jacket itself had miraculously vanished.'' ] (]) 06:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

	== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 21 June 2010 ==

	<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
	\| 1 = 2010-06-21
	\| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 25
	\| 3 = 2010-06-14
	\| 4 = 2010-06-28
	}}}}
	</div>
	<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)</div>
	<!-- EdwardsBot 0053 -->

	==Arborsculpture==
	]
	Thanks for your involvement with the ] article. (Sorry you ever discovered this article exists? I sure wish I never discovered it!) I'm contacting you because I feel that relevant verifiable evidence about the uses of the word "arborsculpture" wasn't properly reviewed in the recent renaming discussion. Do you happen to know the Misplaced Pages guidelines about ''when'' we would be allowed to bring the renaming issue to formal discussion again? Or ''is'' there any restriction on how soon one could formally initiate discussion again? --] (]) 06:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
	:Though it is generally frowned upon to do so too early and if there are no new arguments to make, there is no restriction against initiating a move request again soon after the closure of a request. --] (]) 13:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
	::Hello, I'm curious about your comment (The 'original title' argument would carry some weight but the article itself is more than 4 times the size it was before the move so the stable article argument is not a strong one.) in the closing of title discussion. My question is... does making contribution and improving to an article help entrench the current title of the article?] (]) 14:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::The logic is that if an article has been greatly increased in size then it has likely been greatly increased in scope as well and the original title may no longer be appropriate. If the arborsculpture --> tree shaping move had been done on a version of the article that was substantially similar to the current article, then the 'original title' suggestion would have carried more weight. However, even if that had been the case (which it is not), do note that there are numerous other reasons outlined in my decision to close the move as I did. Regards. --] (]) 17:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I my conflicted opinion, the improved article is now even more appropriately titled as it was formerly. Yes, I'll look at the other reasons, this is just the one that jumped out at me. Thank You, ] (]) 23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::The article was created with the name arborsculpture and is the most accepted name for this art as found in a preponderance of reliable variable sources. '''' '''''''' '''' '''' When you said... “pooktre title as well as the arborsculpture title appear to get almost the same Google hits (not a minority viewpoint here!)” ? no one was suggesting using "Pooktre" as a title. Total Google web hits on arborsculpture or tree shaping won’t tell us much at all due to marketing. Tree shaping on the web is one thing, but ] and ] is quite a different search. Both show many "tree shaping" hits but all appear to describe some other practice in fruit tree industry. ] has many hits specific to the topic of this page with some ] hits. If being nutral and fair is important then ] clearly shows that arborsculpture is used to describe the work of many of the various artist, where as "tree shaping" is used to describe the work of Pooktre almost exclusively.] You also said.“Finally, there seems to be no question that arborsculpture is a term coined by an individual practitioner of the art.” This fact would not exclude the word from being used in a title. Thanks for looking a bit longer and deeper into this, ] (]) 05:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

	== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 28 June 2010 ==

	<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
	\| 1 = 2010-06-28
	\| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 26
	\| 3 = 2010-06-21
	\| 4 = 2010-07-05
	}}}}
	</div>
	<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 21:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)</div>
	<!-- EdwardsBot 0054 -->




	== WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 1 - (June 2010)==

	{\| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%"
	\|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background-color:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top;color:#000"\|
	{\| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#f5fffa"
	! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#cef2e0; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Project News </div>
	\|-		\|-
			!colspan=2 style="font-size:150%; padding: .4em;"\|January 25: ]
	\|style="color:#000"\|
	WP:IND Newsletter is back! It's been nearly a year since the last edition, but we hope to bring out issues on a more regular basis now. The India Wikiproject was set up to increasing coverage of India-related topics on Misplaced Pages, and over the past few months the focus has been on improving ]. A number of the project's ] underwent ] over the past year. Of these, ] and ] survived the review process, while the rest were demoted. During the same period, ], ], Darjeeling and ] were featured on the main page respectively on August 20, September 17, November 6 and December 29, 2009. Meanwhile, articles on topics as diverse as ], ] and ] were promoted as featured articles, and respectively appeared on the main page on March 25, May 17 and May 28, 2010. Consequently, the number of FA-class articles under the project's scope dropped from 67 in August 2009 to 63 in June 2010. The number of ], however, saw a more than 40% increase, from 91 to 130 during the same period, while the number of ] saw a 33% increase from 12 to 16.

	Due to the recent policy changes regarding unreferenced ] (BLPs), an effort was started in January 2010 to source all unreferenced BLPs coming under Wikiproject India. 1200 such articles were identified initially and more were added to the list later. Due to the sourcing effort, the number of Indian unreferenced BLPs is down to ] currently. During February-April 2010, There was a of ] related articles by a ] based IP vandal. Editing from a dynamic IP ] connection, the vandal changed dates of birth, death and ages of a number of ] and ] film actors. Later he added a few international biographies to his list. He also marked some living people like ] as dead. A month long range block was imposed on his IP range two times and each time he came back to vandalise dates once the block expired. Currently the range has been blocked for three months till September 11, 2010.
	\|-
	! <div style="margin: 0; background:#cef2e0; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">What's New?</div>
	\|-
	\| style="color:#000"\|
	*Three members of the project, ], ] and ] received their ] in October-December 2009. Congratulations!
	*] contest 2009. Translations of the description in Indian languages are solicited.]]
	*Wikipedians in Bangalore have been organising ] over the past year, in collaboration with the . The ''']''' is scheduled for July 18, 2010. Indian and other Wikipedians from all Wikipedias in various languages are welcome to attend.
	\|}
	\|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 45%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background-color:#f5faff; vertical-align:top"\|
	{\| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#f5faff"
	! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#cedff2; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Current proposals and discussions</div>
	\|-		\|-
	\|style="~~color~~:~~#000~~"\|		\| style="padding-left: .6em;" \|
			]

			You are invited to ''']''', hosted by ] at the ]'s central branch.
	*'''Please add ] to your watchlist in order to stay updated with the latest discussions regarding various aspects of the project.'''

			The special focus this year will be the launch of our "400 Neighborhoods" campaign for the city's 400th anniversary and ].
	*A discussion is underway ] to reach a consensus regarding the use of Indian number names (''lakh'', ''crore'' etc.) in Misplaced Pages articles. Please participate and add your comments.

			We'll also have ] and you're invited to sign up for one, though space is somewhat limited.
	*Join the ] and save unreferenced Indian BLPs.

			* Saturday, January 25, 2025
	*Some unintended vandalism is going on at the Assamese Misplaced Pages by the ]. This is a request for Assamese-conversant Wikipedians to ].
			*:''12:00 pm – 5:00 pm''
			*:], Grand Army Plaza
			*:Afterparty: 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm (off-site venue, TBA)

	*A discussion is in progress ] in order to determine whether non-Western (including Indian) forms of classical music should be referred to by the nomenclature of ''art music'' instead of ''classical music''. Please participate and add your comments.

	* Watchlist the ] for India related discussions. Opinions from more Indian Wikipedians are required in many of the discussions.

	*The ] is at present underway in ], and the Tamil Misplaced Pages is actively involved at the event. A detailed report will follow in the next issue.

	*] is happening in Poland from July 7-11. Indian Wikipedians attending include ], ], ] , ], ], WMF Board member ] and Advisory Board member Achal Prabala. We wish them all the best! More on their experiences in the next issue.

	If you've just joined, add your name to the ]. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

	Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the ] (Issue 2 – (July 2010)). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
	\|-		\|-
			\|''All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the ].''
	! <div style="margin: 0; background:#cef2e0; font-family: sans-serif; font-weight:normal; font-size:100%%; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Looking forward toward more contributions from you!</div>

	\|-
	! <div style="margin: 0; background:#cef2e0; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Complete To Do List</div>
	\|-
	\| style="color:#000"\|
	<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none; font-size: 100%;">
	<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none;">
	<div class="NavHead" style="Background:transparent; text-align: left;">Complete To Do List</div>
	<div class="NavContent" style="display: none; text-align: left;">

	{\| cellpadding="3" style="background:none"
	\|<center>] '''] \| ]'''</center>
	<div align="right" class="noprint plainlinks"><small>] • <span class="editlink"></span> • ] • • </small></div>

	<!-- When you remove an item, please try to add another. -->
	<!-- If you create an article from this section, and it's still a stub or needs copyediting, please move it to that section instead of removing it entirely. -->
	<li>
	''']:'''
	],
	],
	],
	]
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	'']''</li>
	<li>''']:'''
	]
	],
	]
	],
	],
	],
	]
	]
	</li>

	<li>''']:'''
	],
	],
	],
	]
	'']''
	</li>

	<li>''']:'''
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	'']''
	</li>

	<!-- When you remove a merged/merge in progress article, please try to add another. -->
	<li>''']:'''
	],],],'']''
	</li>

	<li>'''Expand:'''
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	Dr. ],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	]
	'']''</li>
	</li>

	<li>''']:'''
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	],
	'']''
	</li>

	<li>''']:'''
	] articles,
	] articles,
	] articles,
	] articles,
	] articles
	] articles
	</li>

	<li>''']:'''
	],
	],
	]
	],
	],
	],
	],
	]
	],
	]
	</li>

	<li>''']:'''
	], ], ],
	] of ]
	</li>

	<li>'''Other requests:'''
	**Add maps from ] to articles of Indian regions found at ]
	**Create links/categories to <nowiki>{{Elections in India}}</nowiki> template
	</li>

	</ul>
	<div align="right" class="noprint plainlinks"><small>] • <span class="editlink"></span> • ] • • </small></div>
	\|}		\|}

			<small>(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from ].)</small>
	\|-
	! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#cedff2; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Signed...</div>
	\|-
	\|style="color:#000"\|<div align="right">
	*] (Editor)
	*] (Editor)
	*] (Distributor)</div>

			--] via ] (]) 17:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	\|}
			<!-- Message sent by User:Pharos@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite_list&oldid=1263682194 -->
	\|}
	{\|style="border-spacing:8px;margin:-8px -8px"
	\|class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%;border:1px solid #ddcef2;background-color:#faf5ff;vertical-align:top;color:#000"\|
	{\|cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#faf5ff;color:#000"
	\|style="color:#000; text-align:center"\|''Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may mention it at ]
	\|}
	\|}

			== Mistaken revert ==
	<small> This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- ] ] - 02:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)</small>

	== ] ==

	Dear RegentsPark,

	Could I ask you whether you could easily unprotect the following deleted page: ] . I haven been contacted by an editor who has created a credible page on the subject with supporting references demonstrating notability. Please see here ]. Many thanks for your help. ] (]) 17:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Done. The new version looks substantially different (but this is not a comment on whether it is now notable or not!). --] (]) 17:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
	::Thank you kindly for the swift action and sensible comment. ] (]) 17:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

	== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 5 July 2010 ==

	<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
	\| 1 = 2010-07-05
	\| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 27
	\| 3 = 2010-06-28
	\| 4 = 2010-07-12
	}}}}
	</div>
	<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)</div>
	<!-- EdwardsBot 0056 -->

	== Talk:Bollywood ==

	I remember you started reverting a user who kept attaccking me personally on the mentioned talk page and finally you bloxked him for a short period, but now going through it I find that in several previous posts he kept attacking me and insulting me by referring to me as Ms Shahida Kumari, etc. I would want these messages to be removed. Should I do it or you would prefer to do it? ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 12:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	:I think you can remove them yourself. I looked, and they are clear violations of ]. --] (]) 15:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I removed them, and Anupam reverted me. ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 20:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

	== 1984 Ghallooghaaraa ==

	If you have access to the article in some form, you will see that just 4% of it is devoted to the anti-sikh riots of 1984. Overall, it covers the period from 1978 to present. You will find very little of this material in the anti-sikh riots article. ] (]) 19:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Perhaps. But all the material is covered elsewhere where it is more appropriate (] and ]). The entire purpose of the article is to recast the Sikh riots and Operation Bluestar as a holocaust which is not really the case. The events were undeniably horrible but fall short of a holocaust or a genocide. --] (]) 21:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

	== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 12 July 2010 ==

	<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
	\| 1 = 2010-07-12
	\| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 28
	\| 3 = 2010-07-05
	\| 4 = 2010-07-19
	}}}}
	</div>
	<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)</div>
	<!-- EdwardsBot 0057 -->

	== Hey again ==

	I see you also got involved in the case of Dr Mukesh's sock who creates accounts to insult me and stalks my edit history. There's another one - {{user\|Group all sixty}}. ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 22:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
	:And another one: {{user\|Still strong.still}}. ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 22:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
	::blocked one. what is this - an epidemic? --] (]) 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::It is. This guy is obsessed. Has created over 20 accounts using my name with some terrible insults. To think that all of it started because I requested him to cite sources. ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 22:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::All blocked. --] (]) 22:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Thank you. He clearly will create more accounts though, but thanks for the help, it's appreciated. ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 22:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

	==Albert Reira==
	Thnx for the page protection. --> ], ] 22:18, 16 July 2010 (])
	:You're welcome. --] (]) 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

	== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 19 July 2010 ==

	<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
	\| 1 = 2010-07-19
	\| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 29
	\| 3 = 2010-07-12
	\| 4 = 2010-07-26
	}}}}
	</div>
	<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)</div>
	<!-- EdwardsBot 0058 -->

	== Use of sysop powers in content dispute ==

	RegentsPark, I notice you’ve just used your sysop powers to in order to revert one of the edits that led to it being protected. Now, I already know what your explanation for this is going to be—that the “wrong version” of the article was protected—but this is only an acceptable use of sysop powers in the case of simple vandalism. When there is an actual ] over the content in question, admins should not be using their powers in a manner that is (quite overtly) favoring one side in the dispute over the other.

	I’m not involved in this particular content dispute, because I don’t have a strong opinion either way about the content in question. This is only about your use of admin privileges, which I’m bringing up as a relatively uninvolved editor watching the article. I seriously suggest that you reconsider your decision to use your admin powers for this. --] (]) 21:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
	:I don't believe I've used the buttons incorrectly in this case (I've explained my reasoning on ]). However, if you think that my action is particularly egregious, you should bring this up at ]. --] (]) 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

	::I assume you’re referring to ]. Even if the reasoning you provided there is valid, the fact remains that requests like these are supposed to be dealt with by ''uninvolved'' administrators, who don’t have any personal stake in the articles in question. During the time that I’ve been involved in these articles (not the race and intelligence article specifically, but articles about related topics such as ]), you’ve participated enough in them that I don’t think you can be considered uninvolved here.

	::Although I think your actions in this case were non neutral, I’m also not invested enough in this particular content dispute to start an AN/I thread about it, especially while there’s an arbitration case active. However, you should be aware of the possibility that one of the editors who’s more involved in this dispute will bring up your action either at AN/I or with the arbitrators. --] (]) 21:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

	:::This is not usual. Since you appear to be on one side in the content dispute, I will give you some time to undo before taking it to ANI. ] (]) 21:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

	::::Since the edit warring appears to be over the inclusion of text that is disputed, I believe my action is warranted. And I do not consider myself to be on either side of the dispute. Thanks for checking with me first but please feel free to take this to ANI. Regards. --] (]) 03:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

	:::::“I do not consider myself to be on either side of the dispute.”

	:::::You’re listed as an involved party in the arbitration case for this article, and in the ] you’ve presented there, you state:

	:::::''Unless some action is taken to deal with these purpose driven accounts, once the narrowness of their interests is apparent, I fear that we will continue to present a view to the world which indicates that black people are genetically less intelligent than most other people and that it is a generally accepted view that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States was an act of state terrorism. Whether these are true or not, neither view is accepted by their respective academic communities as anything other than minor or fringe, but that is not what[REDACTED] presents to the world.''

	:::::In other words, you take the position that the hereditarian hypothesis about race and intelligence is a “fringe” viewpoint, and that something needs to be done about the editors who would like Misplaced Pages to present it as something other than that. In the recent AN/I threads about these articles, you’ve advocated sanctions for these editors with similar reasoning. There are several editors who agree with you about this, there are also several editors who disagree, and this is one of the most central points of contention on these articles. Since the arbitration case lists you as an involved party in this dispute, you’ve stated there that you believe one side in the dispute to be in the wrong and that something needs to be done about the editors taking that position, and since you’ve advocated sanctions against them for this reason, it’s inaccurate for you to present yourself as either uninvolved or neutral in this dispute. --] (]) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

	::::::That is entirely your perception. I have no 'stake' in any[REDACTED] article and have absolutely no opinion on content on Race and Intelligence articles. However, I do note, once again, your unfortunate tendency to divide all editors into camps that are either ] camps. Misplaced Pages is not a war and I can assure you that there are many editors who are capable of editing articles dispassionately. Though, of course, even an unbiased editor can be mistaken and therefore, if you continue to believe that my motives are suspect, I urge you to bring the matter up at ]. Regards. --] (]) 11:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

	:::::::This has nothing to do with splitting editors into two groups. All it has to do with is the inaccuracy of your claim to have no opinion about this dispute. You state that you have “absolutely no opinion on content on Race and Intelligence articles”. You also state that in your opinion, the hereditarian hypothesis is not accepted by the academic community “as anything other than minor or fringe, but that is not what[REDACTED] presents to the world.” Those two statements are ''incompatible'', because the opinion that the hereditarian hypothesis is fringe but that it is not presented that way on Misplaced Pages—in other words, the opinion that the way it is presented here is something other than how it should be—is an opinion on content in Race and intelligence articles.

	:::::::Are you able to recognize how these statements are incompatible? This is clear-cut enough that if you aren’t willing or able to acknowledge this, it’s going to be difficult for me to continue assuming good faith about your claim to be uninvolved and neutral in this dispute.

	:::::::I’ve already said that I don’t intend to raise this issue at AN/I, although I think Mikemikev does. (] might be a more likely route, actually.) Before this is brought up there, though, it’s important for at least someone to have made an attempt to resolve this matter with you on your userpage. If you aren’t willing to cooperate with that, this will be something to point out in the noticeboard thread. --] (]) 12:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::As I request above, please take the matter up at ANI (or any other forum of your choosing). I take my admin responsibilities seriously and scrutiny is not a threat but a useful part of any such system. Regards. --] (]) 13:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

	==Notice==
	Your actions have been reported here . ] (]) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	I just noticed, looking over the above linked project page, that all restrictions imposed on editors are logged there. Per your closure of , I was wondering if you could add the necessary information to the page.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 00:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	:That would not be appropriate, as my 1RR restriction is '''per day''', not per week. It's a stale issue anyway, and one has to wonder why it's being brought up some five months on. <b>]</b> ] 01:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	::You are completely wrong. The inclusion of your restriction at that page has '''absolutely nothing to do with your restriction's specifics'''. That page is for logging restrictions on editors. As you are an editor who has a restriction, it is completely appropriate. Lastly, please stop stalking my edits.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Your edits need to be "stalked" as you call it, because you are . <b>]</b> ] 01:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::You have been warned to stay away from me, instead you insist on stalking my edits and calling me disruptive. There was nothing disruptive about reporting an editor who violated policy, an editor who has now been blocked indefinitely. Last warning, stop stalking me, and get rid of your combative attitude towards me, or I will report you.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	(od) I don't see why it shouldn't be logged. Unless there has been a discussion since the one linked to above that changes things? --] (]) 02:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	:The only change that has really happened is RP was caught socking to evade his sanction, and was warned to remain on one account.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 02:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	::As long as it's logged truthfully, ie, that my restriction is to one edit '''per day''' per article and not one week like it says in the list of types of restrictions, then there will be no problems. And while we're at it, why is it necessary to go over old ground this way? <b>]</b> ] 02:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Well, ] is a log of all current restrictions. As long as the restriction is current, it is better to log it so that it is available to all editors. I'll reread the discussion to see if there is anything specific about the 1RR duration but generally 1RR refers to one revert per day.--] (]) 02:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::I have not said or mentioned anything about it being a 'week', so I see no need to even mention that. My own beef is that it be logged, per policy.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 02:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	I don't know the history here, but can you (Daedalus and Radiopathy) both make an effort to leave each other alone, and not further this dispute? Thanks much; I think that would be in everyone's best interest. -- ]] 02:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)\

	I've logged the restriction with the 1 per day specified (though it is not necessary). Beyond that, I think Pakaran has the right idea. --] (]) 03:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Also, a general point of order. I note that the logging of restrictions is described above as a 'policy'. It is a convention rather than a policy and there is no specific requirement that editing restrictions be logged. --] (]) 03:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	::That being said, I'd like to request that the restriciton be removed from the log. <b>]</b> ] 03:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::Until the community lifts the restriction, the restriction will not be removed from the log; the same goes for any restrictions imposed by the community. That it was inadvertantly missed or forgotten doesn't change the effect of the restriction. ] (]) 11:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

	== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 26 July 2010 ==

	<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
	\| 1 = 2010-07-26
	\| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 30
	\| 3 = 2010-07-19
	\| 4 = 2010-08-02
	}}}}
	</div>
	<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 03:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)</div>
	<!-- EdwardsBot 0059 -->

	== A small note about the RFC ==

	You closed the AN/I on Pmanderson a bit early. The RFC is likely to get deleted in a couple of hours by Bishonen. As far as I can figure out, he will close it because I, when asking Pmanderson to not do personal attacks, instead of writing something like "I would like you to not attack other editors", used a template that said pretty much the same thing. See ]. --] (]) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Crikey - Talk about confusion! Are you sure pmanderson won't waive the 48 hr requirement? Personally, I don't see either the ANI thread or the RfC going in the direction you want them to, but, since I explicitly mentioned the RfC in archiving the ANI thread, I guess I can reopen it if you want. But, my suggestion would be to let it go and to focus on discussing content issues on article talk pages. --] (]) 16:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
	::I don't know if he will waive it or not. This whole long preocess has started because I find it impossible to focus on discussing content issues, as every edit I make will be reverted with "vandalism" comments, and all discussion ends in ]. I'm completely exhausted and desperate from this as nothing I do goes anywhere, and WQA and ANI are simply being ignored. This should obviously not have gone to RFC/U, but now it did. --] (]) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::OK. Reopened. --] (]) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::Super, thanks. --] (]) 17:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

	As this is my first involvement in an RfC I'm unsure of the process. We do have the minimum requirements fulfilled by now, but nothing seems to be happening. Is that normal? --] (]) 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Depends on the RfC. A hot RfC would see plenty of comments soon after it is opened but, if people have not a whole lot to say, then nothing much will get said. Like I said above, I doubt if this will work out the way you would like - but you never know until you've tried. --] (]) 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

	::Oh, it has lots of comments, and even something looking like an emerging consensus, but it's not certified, even though minimum requirements are fulfilled. As I understand it an admin needs to certify it, right? --] (]) 18:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

	:::I think that editors who are listed as 'tried to resolve' also certify the RfC. I don't really follow this stuff but let me take a look. --] (]) 18:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::I've asked Xeno to take a look ]. --] (]) 19:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

	:::It doesn't need to be certified by an admin, just two editors who have "tried and failed to resolve the dispute". Bishonen seems to feel that the certifiers have not "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" - I haven't looked deeply enough into it to endorse or reject that claim. –]] 19:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
	::::So does someone have to explicitly move an RfC from 'candidate' to 'certified'? I assume any editor can do that? --] (]) 19:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Yea, it won't move on its own. –]] 19:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

	::::::Ah, I see, so certified is not the right word. What I'm actually asking was the above; who are allowed to move the RfC from "Candidate" to "Certified" on this list: ]. I assumed that was an administrator only, but now when I look at the edits, I'm not sure it is. --] (]) 19:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

	:::::::It's not administrator only, but given that there has been some dispute over whether the certification is valid it may be best left to an uninvolved user. –]] 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

	::::::::Oh, absolutely, I'm definitely not gonna touch it. I would be pretty angry if anyone involved did that if I was the subject of an RfC. :-) I suspect that means it will linger on candidate for a long time. :-/ But I've come to realize that these processes take a very long time. --] (]) 19:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

	::::::::: I've asked {{user\|Ncmvocalist}} to comment as he is quite familiar with the RFC process and related precedents - much moreso than I am, anyway. –]] 19:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

	(od)(ec)Thanks Xeno. I'm not sure what the practical effects of having the 48 hour rule waived but the RfC 'uncertified' are, but I suspect this is better resolved properly! ncmvocalist is likely the right person to deal with this. --] (]) 19:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

	== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 2 August 2010 ==

	<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
	\| 1 = 2010-08-02
	\| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 31
	\| 3 = 2010-07-26
	\| 4 = 2010-08-09
	}}}}
	</div>
	<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 23:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)</div>
	<!-- EdwardsBot 0062 -->

	==] (2nd annual)==
	Our 2nd annual ''']''' has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at ].

	There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. '''''' here. And sign up ]. All are invited!<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)</small>

	== Abominable conduct of ] ==

	], ], “I had to wade through long posts by Hindutashravi before I realized that his/her views (on Hindutash) were not worth any attention whatsoever”. This you have stated ] that, “I'm not even going to pretend to understand where Hindutash Pass actually lies”. on 20 October 2009 at 18:53 when in fact, ] , “In the light of previous discussions, you need to get consensus first and only then modify the article. The fact that you've posted something on the talk page is not enough”. You,
	] had stated that I am which are way beyond and he But When I asked you, “From what you are saying, “The “Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir” only on the basis of "and the ] is not a reliable source!”, You do not at all respond. You do not have even ] of shame. When ] endeavoured to create a neutral and comprehensive article blending both the rival versions, you could have none of it and nipped it in the bud and did not permit it to be taken forward for constructive modifications! Now you have the audacity to shamelessly say, “Blocked user attempting to evade block”. My stance is clear ], and has not been refuted by the shameless administrators. None of you are ] and you people can make sweeeping un] allegations against me and do what you please with ]. Why don’t you “protect” your version of Hindutash just like you have done to the article? It will save a lot of my time and energy. And, It will also confirm that ] is '''not''' "a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site". ]. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Hi Hindutashravi. You first need to get your block removed - then you can edit articles on this site. Regards. --] (]) 11:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


	:::Hi ],Thanks for informing me that I need to get my block removed! For your information, I would like to inform you that my communication to ] and ] pertaining to getting my block removed and further for punitive action against the dishonest administrators who have blocked me is still pending and I am awaiting a response from them. Perhaps You can do some thing about that! Thanks!!

	:::I will reproduce the latest communication sent to ] dated 9 June 2010 20:48 titled "Conduct of Toddst1" hereunder:
	::::::''']'''
	:::In my previous correspondence with ] and Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), notably ] who has been replying purportedly on behalf of ArbCom, ] has been pretending that my correspondence has been pertaining to issues pertaining content dispute when it has definitely been regarding conduct , where as ] has evading the profound and pertinent issues pertaining to Conduct that I had raised and harping on content issues when I had specifically contacted him only on the issue of conduct and he apropos the issue of content, he has ignored my suggestion that since the issue of content dispute pertains to law, the issue may be placed before a legal panel and he does not reply. There is a conspiracy of silence!

	:::But now coming to ], He has stated, "You have not been allegedly blocked, you have in fact, been blocked. Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address your behaviour. You've had enough appeals here and you have now lost your ability to edit this page”. He is indulging in misrepresentation and lies. I am definitely blocked. It is the reasons given for the block that is alleged. He is lying when he says that in my messages contesting the block, I have not addressed my behaviour. I had explicitly inter alia stated that “I was in the midst of my endeavour for consensus when ] blocked me”. “I as a ] myself, was planning to get in touch with Wikipedian ] like ] for their ] but before I could do that *I have been blocked by Abecedare and these constant blocks are hindering my endeavour for ]”. “I have already made it clear that I was willing to not insist that the article should state that the pass is in Kashmir provided ] and ] also do not insist in stating that the pass was allegedly in “Xinjiang region of the ]”.
	:::Further he says “You've had enough appeals here” . My earlier message was allegedly declined not on merits because my earlier “request” was allegedly “”. Besides, even in the previous ] dated 27 July 2009 , ] to “ Please pin point the exact nature of my disruption, and I will do what is necessary on my part to take remedial measures” and “I will also attempt to look for some mediation or third opinions first as suggested by ]” . But he did not, and he willfully ignored and evaded the issue and now he again states, that “Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address your behaviour”. How can such a despicable perverted behaviour be countenanced? I demand that you take action against him.
	:::If ] says, “ You were offered a fairly reasonable condition for your return” or “getting consensus before making changes is actually standard practice in controversial articles”, then the “fairly reasonable condition” should be applicable to both (all) the parties and “getting consensus before making changes is actually standard practice in controversial articles” should also be applicable to both the parties. What does she mean when she says, “You've given a lot more information that I needed in this request”, or “I didn't read most of that”? She is lying. She has not just read all that I had stated and she has also perfectly understood what I had stated. Just because she very well knows that what ever I had stated therein is perfectly true and she cannot refute it, she is making such statements. I cannot give her information in a platter which is tailor made to suit her whims and fancies! I give information which is relevant to me pertaining to the true reasons for my block and if she is not interested, then she should just not interfere and let some honest administrator to deal with my contest.

	:::Toddst1 has not just removed my ability to contest the block for false reasons. He has also removed my ability to edit my own discussion page. This show how much prejudiced and mala fide his action is. I will pin point the reason why he removed even my right to edit my own page. It is because of the new subsection “]” that I created which angered and irritated him!
	:::I demand that I be given a chance to contest the block ] was given. I am not necessarily stating that he, i.e. ] was given a fair chance. But he was the only one ] challenge ], and all of us know what happened to him! If you are going to not give me a chance to disprove the statements of ] and his colleagues, rather than making unilateral and arbitrary unsubstantiated prejudged statements like, “However, the evidence you have provided tends to confirm that you edited outside policy; were reasonably blocked for it; and rejected a good faith offer of conditional unblocking. I have little more to add, I'm afraid”, I will have to do what is necessary to expose you. Your article on ArbCom states that, “A statistical study published in the ] indicated that the Committee has ] of ignoring the content of user disputes and focusing on user conduct.”

	:::Why don’t you just confess that ] has a policy to support the Chinese and has a ] in favour of the Chinese on the issue of Chinese territorial claims in India and for that reason, I just had to be necessarily removed and the allegations of disruption are just a pretext! the first ever Indian ] is not at all going to change all that. The issue is not just about the pass in Kashmir. It is also for example about my contribution in ] the article where in I had added immense information which are neither my original research nor my point of view but are extracts or quotes from acclaimed research books and supported by verifiability which are not being retained by the ] who want the article to be in their preferred version. The ] version of the article refers to Arunachal Pradesh which, but for the fact that Arunachal Pradesh like Aksai Chin are both parts of India, has nothing to do with Aksai Chin in order to serve the ulterior purpose of the ] involved. ]. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	(od) Well, good luck. Meanwhile, do note that posting from an IP is ], which is frowned upon. --] (]) 17:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

	==]==
	Because the source quoted so ranks it; it is one of the few cases (because they comment on it specifically), where it is possible to be sure that they count both states as democracies. Both India and Pakistan were Dominions then, and had unwritten Consitutions after the British manner (as did Canada until the 1970s), but the legislatures on both sides were elected, before Independence, in the knowledge that they would be national legislatures and Constituent Assemblies. ] <small>]</small> 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
	:Feel free to copy this comment. ] <small>]</small> 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

	== Buckup of Article ==

	Can I take buckup of these articles World Organization for Scientific Cooperation and Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes. Thanks.--] (]) 08:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
	:Moved to user space. You should make offline backups of these pages from there. ] and ]. --] (]) 10:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

	==Thanks==

	for realising that there are situations where nothing is going to happen unless somebody does something. --] (]) 01:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

	== Thank you! ==

	For reading Pmandersons source on the Kashmir war. Of the sources he uses which are available online he usually gets them wrong them, but I haven't had any chance to check out the other sources. I should probably give you a barn star or something, but I don't really know which one. :-) --] (]) 05:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

	== Advice? ==

	Hi RegentsPark. I think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, ] \| ] 22:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
	:I'm not sure I agree that this is a great idea. First, I think that there are nuances that are not easily covered. For example, while point 1 is generally correct, there are situations where the POV of the author is important, especially where it is self-declared or is generally recognized by his/her peers. For example, when ] writes on religion, it makes little sense to ignore his views on religion. I agree that it is not for us to use Dawkins' known POV to interpret a piece that he has written but rather to, legitimately I think, use the commentary of others that points out Dawkins' POV and uses that POV to comment on the writing. However, the line between content POV and writer POV is fuzzy by definition and I don't think it is something that can be easily clarified. Second, I personally (and this is a[REDACTED] POV!) like the fact the way ] and ] go together. ] explains that neutrality is a desired objective of the encyclopedia. ] is the way we decide what neutrality is. All this is ably supported by ] and ] which are guidelines rather than policy prescriptions. These are my immediate thoughts but I'll follow any discussion on this and figure things out as I go along. Regards. --] (]) 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
	::I agree with you that "the line between content POV and writer POV is fuzzy by definition and I don't think it is something that can be easily clarified." I guess my point was that in these cases the author usually identifies his or her POV clearly in the text itself (Dawkins surely does). And if the author does not identify his or her POV in the text, I believe it is pretty easy, usually, to find a secondary source that identifies the viewpoint. ] \| ] 13:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

	== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 9 August 2010 ==

	<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
	\| 1 = 2010-08-09
	\| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 32
	\| 3 = 2010-08-02
	\| 4 = 2010-08-16
	}}}}
	</div>
	<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 01:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)</div>
	<!-- EdwardsBot 0063 -->

			Hi, while trying to revert vandalism at ], you accidentally added it back. Just noting this as I saw the IP reverting your edit while patrolling recent changes and I was surprised, but there's no need to revert it again. ] (] · ]) 10:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	==]==
	I'm sorry to say that I (respectfully) disagree with your apparent assumption that this individual now meets any of the requirements of ] and, to the best of my knowledge, will not do so until he actually wins the election or attains considerably more in the way of non-local media coverage than is present. My belief is that we have a responsibility to ensure that articles about political candidates are held to this standard because otherwise we could inadvertently be contributing to electioneering; frankly, I have seen many, many pages where these sorts of assertions of notability are being made by obviously partisan political workers in the hope that Misplaced Pages's imprimatur will be lent to their candidate. In this case, the article in question actually failed at AfD about 60 days ago, at ], which leads me to suggest (again respectfully) that you may have erred in restoring this page without asking that it be taken through ]. May I know your thoughts? ]:<small>]</small> 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
	:Well, I think the notability of the individual has changed with the end of the primary which means that, at the least, it should go through AfD again. IMO, that is. I guess I should have pinged you before unprotecting but didn't think that this would be controversial. Apologies. Since I should have asked you, I will not take it as a personal affront if you override my unprotection. --] (]) 18:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
	::I wandered over here after working to semi-recreate the article so people looking for this new nominee wouldn't wonder what was wrong with Misplaced Pages. jftr, we do have an Infobox 'congressional candidates' for notable candidates - and certainly nominees for major parties - for important offices when the person is indeed 'in contention' (as opposed to being a no-hoper according to the various polls and rankings available for these elections). If I had known the article was in an Afd earlier, I would have posted that information there at the time. So, I'm letting you know this now in hopes of preventing future mistakes of this sort. As I posted in the article's Talk page just now, I don't know who this guy is and am only interested in helping those interested in working on the article get off to a good start. ] (]) 18:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::Well, I think ] point #3 leaves notability to consensus. Prior to the primary, he was not notable (as a politician). Post the primary, it depends on ''significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'', which, assuming it is a question, is better left to AfD. --] (]) 19:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:44, 22 January 2025

I'm busy in RL and may not be able to respond swiftly to queries

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

IP-range sock is back

Seems like the IP-sock of this blocked editor is back . I got a notification from Narky Blert. I'd like to request PP for these two articles , . Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. This guy is an absolute pest who wastes a lot of volunteer DABfixers' time and effort by introducing or reintroducing bad links, and has been known to remove {{dn}} tags without fixing the problem. Narky Blert (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

IP sock is back. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Another sock IP - . Have a look. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Just saw this. Let me know if this is still an issue. Also, I'm not getting email notifications when someone edits my talk page. I wonder why? RegentsPark (comment) 17:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually found a new one while going through the last IP's edits , reverted them in one article . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings

When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it."

(Text on page 17 illustrated in the frontispiece in Juliana Horatia Ewing's Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers, illustrated by Mary Wheelhouse, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.)

Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Thanks Fowler. Hope 2025 is a good year for you. "Full of things that have never been" but, hopefully, good things! RegentsPark (comment) 17:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @RegentsPark: for that nice quote from Rilke. I tried to find the fuller version and came up with this (middle of the page):

And now let us believe in a long year that is given to us, new, untouched, full of things that have never been, full of work that has never been done, full of tasks, claims, and demands; and let us see that we learn to take it without letting fall too much of what it has to bestow upon those who demand of it necessary, serious, and great things.

but am having a hard time figuring out the end of that sentence. I wonder if you have the German version. It is been a long time since I passed my German requirement in graduate school by the skin of my teeth, but perhaps I could run it through Google translate and see if they come up with the same.

Regardless, thanks for the nice words. I too hope the coming year will bring some unexpected but pleasant things for all of us. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe @Joshua Jonathan and Austronesier: might have the original German source. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I once had the collected works in pocket-format, but got rid of it a couple of decades ago... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I still have the 6-vol. Insel edition of Rilke's works in my shelf, however this hasn't the letters in it. The German original text floats around in several web pages and goes: Und nun wollen wir glauben an ein langes Jahr, das uns gegeben ist, neu, unberührt, voll nie gewesener Dinge, voll nie getaner Arbeit, voll Aufgabe, Anspruch und Zumutung; und wollen sehen, daß wirs nehmen lernen, ohne allzuviel fallen zu lassen von dem, was es zu vergeben hat, an die, die Notwendiges, Ernstes und Großes von ihm verlangen. (I've verified it by means of Google Books snippets.) Wish you all wonderful holidays! –Austronesier (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Austronesier:. This exchange on Regents Park's page captures the spirit of my greeting card. It is a "rare privilege" indeed. The German text clarifies a little how it might be translated in simple English with the help of Google Translate: " in a long year that is given to us ... full of tasks, demands, and even unreasonable demands; and let us learn to accept them without letting go too much of what it has to give to those who demand the necessary, serious, and great things." It is not perfect, but it is at least in the form in which it can go into my commonplace book Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

A throwaway quote inspired this enjoyable exchange! Ah, the pleasures of Misplaced Pages! Unfortunately my German is limited to Nein andDas Boot and I'm forced to stick with English translations.RegentsPark (comment) 17:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

LukeEmily (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

LukeEmily (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @LukeEmily:. Best wishes for the holiday season to you and your loved ones and hope that 2025 turns out to be a great year! RegentsPark (comment) 16:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, RegentsPark!

Happy New Year!

RegentsPark,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.
Dympies (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Dympies (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Dympies:, Happy New Year to you and your loved ones! --RegentsPark (comment) 17:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Sat Jan 25: Misplaced Pages Day NYC 2025

January 25: Misplaced Pages Day
Brooklyn Central Library You are invited to Misplaced Pages Day 2025, hosted by Wikimedia NYC at the Brooklyn Public Library's central branch. The special focus this year will be the launch of our "400 Neighborhoods" campaign for the city's 400th anniversary and WikiProject New York City/400 Task Force. We'll also have a lightning talks session and you're invited to sign up for one, though space is somewhat limited. Saturday, January 25, 2025 12:00 pm – 5:00 pm Brooklyn Central Library, Grand Army Plaza Afterparty: 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm (off-site venue, TBA)
All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct.

January 25: Misplaced Pages Day

Brooklyn Central Library

You are invited to Misplaced Pages Day 2025, hosted by Wikimedia NYC at the Brooklyn Public Library's central branch.

The special focus this year will be the launch of our "400 Neighborhoods" campaign for the city's 400th anniversary and WikiProject New York City/400 Task Force.

We'll also have a lightning talks session and you're invited to sign up for one, though space is somewhat limited.

Saturday, January 25, 2025
12:00 pm – 5:00 pm

Brooklyn Central Library, Grand Army Plaza

Afterparty: 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm (off-site venue, TBA)

All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Mistaken revert

Hi, while trying to revert vandalism at Special:Diff/1267166374, you accidentally added it back. Just noting this as I saw the IP reverting your edit while patrolling recent changes and I was surprised, but there's no need to revert it again. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)