Misplaced Pages

User talk:RegentsPark: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:08, 14 October 2009 editTinucherian (talk | contribs)Administrators54,323 edits →Tinu nom: {{Tb|Tinucherian|RfA}} ~~~~← Previous edit Revision as of 16:20, 14 October 2009 edit undoMoni3 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,283 edits →ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan: new sectionNext edit →
Line 319: Line 319:
{{Tb|Tinucherian|RfA}} {{Tb|Tinucherian|RfA}}
-- ] ] - 10:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC) -- ] ] - 10:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

== ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan ==

]. --] (]) 16:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:20, 14 October 2009

Archiving icon
Archives


The Mattisse biscuit

Hi, RegentsPark. It's unpleasant altogether for me to read Mattisse's page at this time, naturally, and I tend to avoid it; but now that for once I've read it all the way through, I've got to say your defense of Mattisse at my expense really takes the bisquit. Would you like to be accused of cabalism, or of harassing Jimbo Wales? Or being called a "toxic personality"? No? Really, you wouldn't? Well, I'm surprised, since you apparently think such attacks are perfectly all right—quite appropriate—"innocuous", "limited", merely "juvenile in character", "barely abusive" (!) etc—as long as they're levelled at somebody else. Are you sure you read the diffs of the CallMeNow account before calling them innocuous? Or is there some special reason why you think it's proper for me, in particular, to have snake venom and bile spat at me by Mattisse? Have I offended you in some way? And do you see how your insistence on the harmlessness of Mattisse's sock edits is encouraging her to offer a mind-blowing defense which can only harm her cause? ("I made a few harmless edits" ... "I thought that was the 'playful' way to do it".) You're far from alone on that page in carelessly offering offense to me, or in handing Mattisse a spade with which to enlarge the hole she's standing in, but I do believe you're the worst; congratulations. Bishonen | talk 07:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

Hmm. I haven't come across your monicker before and don't know you so I can assure you that no offense was intended and I apologize for any taken. I didn't expect that anyone would be offended by random drive by comments of this sort but clearly I was wrong. Thank you for letting me know. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 24 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 07/25/2009
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan and Misplaced Pages at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

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

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

... we did the laundry, mended the fence, extended the library, and kept (most) of the zombies out, while you were vacationing. Trust you'll at least weed the lawn ? :-) Abecedare (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

.... if the lawn doesn't weed me first....! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 08:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Burmese Indians

Hi, Can you please create a 2 paragraph introduction to the article. You seem better at editing .

Vinay84 (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try but this holiday weekend here does not help! Nice work on the article - you're taking it up several notches on the quality rungs. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am not an expert on this .I have been expanding the article based on the available definition.

--Vinay84 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, That was very nice of you. BTW if you have info about nepalese in Burma , maybe a new article can be started

--Vinay84 (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Ultimatum from the reviewer. CAn you do any epansion? especially introduction and economic roles.

--Vinay84 (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not till Monday. Plus, I can only really copy edit and rewrite based on what is in the article because all I have is personal and anecdotal information (no sources). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, do you think we should ask for another editor to review the article since the current reviewer seems to have become inactive --Vinay84 (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a good idea. My problem is that I can't edit to the GA (or FA) timetables so, though I'll try to lend a hand, don't count on me for too much! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User User:Ata Fida Aziz edits

Aye, after checking Gilgit-Baltistan and Gilgit Agency pages history and latest edits by User:Ata Fida Aziz, seems that he/she wishes to change "partition of India" to "independence of Pakistan". I'd say that is one side of the story, though, but the Partition of India page at least tells background. I've reverted edits in Pakistan – United States relations, Pakistani literature, Demographics of Karachi, Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit Agency and Gilgit.

I'd like to ask for opinion — what to do next, wade through his/hers log or accept Pakistani side of view? Cheers, --Rayshade (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case I think you are doing the right thing. I don't see how the situation of the various Kashmir entities can be understood solely in terms of the independence of Pakistan (i.e., without reference to the partition of India). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A sock of the banned User:Paknur who was the formerly banned Siddiqui (talk · contribs) who has an obsession with removing the word India everywhere. Like many of his compatriots, he likes to write websites claiming that Pakistanis are Arabs/Persians and racially distinct from the people of India and Bangladesh etc, and likes referring to things like "ancient Pakistani poet" to avoid the word India. We need to ask someone to make an edit filter to catch these edits from the usual banned Pakistanis YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, dug through Aziz's edits, reverted obvious issues wherever Yellowmonkey wasn't already done with it. Some of his/hers edits were actually helpful, typically masking the not-so-useful ones, though. However, there are several page moves that need more experience than I have. BTW, User:Ata Fida Aziz also has a habit of removing Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan. Cheers, --Rayshade (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody 04:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Khatri

Can you take a look at this? It got on my watchlist because I've been G4 tagging a set of related articles that created under a new title every day because the previous one is SALTed. On this one, one particular user KhatriNYC (talk · contribs) comes by every few days and reverts ALL edits between their prior visit and now. Don't know what to make of it other than it's absurd. -SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


Its not absurd, its the truth and i live by it unlike some users here. Some people post edits from unrelieble and unacredited sources, so I have every right to put the Khatri page back to its original format, with everything at the point have acredited citations/references.

--KhatriNYC (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you are online ...

... and YM is perhaps not, can you take a look at this ? Nothing urgent really, but thought I'd drop you a line since I saw you were cleaning Chhotaa Ghallooghaaraa‎. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you also fix this cut-n-paste attempt-at-move: Wadda Ghallooghaaraa vs Wadda Ghalughara ? I haven't researched the preferred transliteration. Abecedare (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
YM can run a cu on this new user (I can't!). And you're not going to catch me doing masochistic things like reversing cut and paste moves! I'll probably just mess it up anyway. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
On this what would be required is G6 deletion of Wadda Ghallooghaaraa and then recreating a redirect and/or moving to the right spelling. Already someone has redirected the article, so it appears ok from at least a two article aspect, but it's still a GFDL vio (not that I think it needed clarifying, but the GFDL vios in this walled garden are getting too much, so I felt like chiming in). cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

<deindebt>
"not going to catch me doing masochistic things" A non-masochistic admin is an oxymoron. De-sysop! Desysop! :-)
But seriously, I myself am unsure on the preferred Punjabi transliteration, so it may be best for the article name to be discussed before deciding on its final resting place (no pun intended). The current situation with Wadda Ghallooghaaraa redirecting to Wadda Ghalughara at least prevents the article history from being split. I'll raise the article name question on the talk page, and hopefully some knowledgeable users will chime in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for protecting the Devo page. I am sure this is the reason for the mess. Sorry, and thanks!--Gordonrox24 |  22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I won't even pretend to understand what's going on :-) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
A long story blow way out of proportion by kids who feel the need to vandalize WP. 's All. Thanks again.--Gordonrox24 |  22:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring page

I appreciate your input. If you could watchlist User:Mattisse/Monitoring' you could help me in dealing with future problems. I hope not to disappoint you again. I am very sorry. —mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Watching. Hope I can do a better job of advising you the next time! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh. And glad to have you back in un-retired form! :-) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

I just wanted to let you know that I've re-protected this article following persistent vandalism almost immediately after you unprotected it. Hopefully this is acceptable. Regards, –Juliancolton |  01:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised :-) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ode on Indolence FAC

"makes a number of pertinent points (the 'most enjoyed' is a prime example) " - The source says that something was the "most enjoyed" thing he did that year. That would mean that it was more enjoyed than everything else that year. It is not a leap or original research to claim that he stated that he enjoyed writing the ode than any of the other odes, as that was the most enjoyed. Other sources say the same thing and in different words. The critics interpret what he says as being exact and claim it is puzzling why if he enjoyed -writing- the poem so much why he didn't enjoy the actual poem. That is the point of the sentence and I don't see where there are any grammar problems in it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that, though Keats did say that writing the ode was the thing 'he most enjoyed that year', he did so in a letter and did not directly say that he enjoyed writing that particular ode more than he did writing the others. The fact that he did do so in a letter makes it a casual comment that should not be accepted with a great deal of certainty. At best, one can conclude is that "In a letter to Miss Jeffery, Keats said that writing this ode had been 'the thing he had most enjoyed that year' and that this was the same year that he wrote Ode to a Nightingale, Ode to a Grecian Urn, etc." I guess the issue is the leap to the conclusion 'enjoyed writing this ode more than the others' because Keats might not have made the same statement if an explicit comparison had been offered. Since we can't examine the state of his mind at the point he wrote the letter, we are likely better off not going beyond his exact words. I also agree that there is an unwarranted connection being drawn between 'unpublished' and 'most enjoyed' in the first paragraph. The 'though' that is being used as a connector should not be there. I would prefer to separate the two thoughts. In a June xx letter, Keats wrote that this ode 'brought him the most joy that year'.(ref) Unlike the other four, "Ode on Indolence" remained unpublished until 1848, 27 years after Keats's death.(ref) I have no issues with the grammar but Fowler is a grammar pedant, at times excessively so, and he does tend to go on about it (I have a vague recollection of his insisting that we write something in a convoluted past simple because that was grammatically correct while I argued that past perfect would make for simpler sentences. Or something like that anyway.) Plus, I can see that his past conflicts with you were getting the better of his judgement. Hopefully that will now be a thing of the past. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC) BTW, may I add that the article is well written and not only very readable but also makes enjoyable reading. Hard though it might be, you may want to ignore Fowler's barbs and focus on some of his substantial comments. It would make a fine article better. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Denial of the Armenian Genocide

In Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide you wrote

"Having one article on the Armenian genocide and another labeled dispute does imply that the genocide itself is disputed (my understanding - mostly from lay knowledge and from reading the discussion - is that it is the recognition that is the focus of dispute not the genocide itself."

I think you need to know far more about what genocide is before you close such a debate. I suggest that you read the article Bosnian Genocide as it explains it. One can have crimes against humanity which may even be described as the criminal act of genocide but which are not genocide because there is no intent to commit genocide as described in this passage:

In September 2006, former Bosnian Serb leader Momcilo Krajisnik was found guilty of multiple instances of crimes against humanity, but while the ICTY judges found that there was evidence that crimes committed in Bosnia constituted the criminal act of genocide (actus reus), they did not establish that the accused possessed genocidal intent, or was part of a criminal enterprise that had such an intent (mens rea).

The position of some/many (?) not sure of the quantity, but defiantly the British Government is that crimes against humanity were committed by the Ottoman Government but mens rea is not proven. Given that there are broadly three positions on a spectrum from genocide through to no crimes against humanity were committed, having two articles makes it impossible to represent the positions with a NPOV. For example here is the current US position, which with the current structure is difficult to integrate into the two articles.

The word Genocide is short and sharp, unlike the longer term "Crime against humanity" so the former makes more of an impact in newspaper headlines, but they usually cover similar physical acts, (indeed it is difficult to see how most forms of genocide could be committed without also committing crimes against humanity), the major difference is that genocide has to be directed at specific groupings and the perpetrators have to be part of a conspiracy to which intends to destroy the group. For example Krajisnik main move for killing seemed to the court to be out of revenge, not with the intent to destroy the group biologically (that these killings may have helped to destroy the group does not make his acts genocidal, although such killings were crimes against humanity).

Not one of the people who wish to keep the the situation as it is (with two articles) have presented any justification for having two articles, so one article has to be move if a merger is to take place. Given that there is no policy and guideline justification for having two articles, I would ask you to reconsider the closing of this requested move in the way you have, as I have chosen the name from a reliable source, but there are others that also used the name Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute an article that the BBC had to rewrite to meet their own NPOV and factual guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi RegentsPark. Earlier I had a taken a source to the WP:RS board about a 'BBC documentary and Alaya Rahm trial'. It was discussed for a week by 4 independent wikipedians including you. In the end it was concluded that 'the 0ld BBC documentary' can either be removed as the following trial made it questionable (or) if left in the article the other secondary source 'The Daily Pioneer' which covers the 'Alaya Rahm trial' must also be included.

In the conclusion the source referred by Priyanath is the 'Daily Pioneer' article.

  • New developments:

There are some editors and other activists who don't want to follow the earlierWP:RS recommendation and took it to the WP:RS board again and did not present case / facts correctly. There was not even a mention about the 'Alaya Rahm trial' which is mainly covered in the 'The Daily Pioneer' article.

will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Re "Venom alert"

I agree that Mattisse's choice of words was unhelpful at what started as parts of 1 ANI and has split into 2, and have already said so. However I think your "the way to look at this is that an editor has posted a comment on the monitoring page with the goal of alerting mentors to an action of Mattisse" ignores the terms in which Bishonen posted that comment. For example if Mattisse had used similar language, I suspect there would have been calls for an immediate block. Baiting and pack-hunting are too common on WP. Perhaps we should ask some ArbCom memebers if they interpret on Mattisse as meaning that that Mattisse must submissively put up with behaviour which they would not condone from her. --Philcha (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just think we aren't helping Mattisse by focusing on the editor who posted the 'alert' regardless of the fact that the header is inflammatory. The point is not that this is an unfair dump on Mattisse but rather that extending the discussion on the mentoring page is counter-productive. Enough drama surrounds and follows Mattisse anyway, why add more (fuel to the fire)? Perhaps, as KC suggests, the correct forum would have been a post on Bishonen's talk page with a request to refactor the heading. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Help on Y-Chromossomal Aaron Article

RegentsPark, we have one misterious person (looks the same) that is vandalizing the Y-chromosomal Aaron article and Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) article, AGAIN. I dont know what to do anymore. Please, help us with this person. See the article.. Regards --MCohenNY (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your input needed at ...=

... User_talk:Dbachmann#British_India. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Mysore and Coorg FAC

Your feedback at History of Mysore and Coorg FAC is greatly appreciated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

All the issues (except additional alt-text that I will be adding in bits and pieces during the day) have now been dealt with. I welcome comments from you at the FAC review or on the article talk page. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Goa

The editor I was writing to has very strong opinions about Goa. To me, Goa has some special significance which is not mentioned at all. I am seeking to understand what others think. I already know what opponents think; they want no mention of Goa. After understanding what some others think, I might make a proposal. I am no troublemaker who seeks to edit/revert/edit things. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol

I burst out laughing seeing your edit-summary here since I could pictur a street hawker making the pitch to passers-by. :-) Abecedare (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


First day as an admin and I am in the sights of Light current (talk · contribs) (see User talk:79.75.33.122 , User:LargeHadron), my user pages are being vandalized etc. You know who I blame, right ?! Abecedare (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

All part of my goon squad! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Further to my reply @ my talk, please do feel free to set a shorter expiry if you're willing to watch the article. I've found the edit-to-revert ratio is too high, even on days other than his birthday. –xeno 17:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Race and crime in the United States

Hi, RegentsPark. I recently made significant changes to the article Race and crime in the United States to reflect both the concerns regarding neutrality and synthesis as well as the results of some informal research I conducted regarding what could be seen as a fair and even-handed presentation. I would be grateful if you could review the article anew and comment on the talk page. If there are still concerns regarding NPOV and SYNTH, please indicate how the article could be further improved. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the article is expanding rapidly! :-) I'll take a look next week - let's aim to get rid of that synthesis tag quickly. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Delhi

Thanks for your quick action. I hope you would monitor the article in future to prevent disruptive behavior by some users. --Nosedown (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I've got it on my watchlist but do let me know of any disruptive editors. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan
Next: Saturday October 10


This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Misplaced Pages and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

148 Lafayette Street
between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your help with the Naya water. Hey, you're back from travelling the world? How was it, and how was the world? Drmies (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The world was pretty much still there ... and I'm still here as well. Overall, a net positive! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey RP, what do you think of Naya (water) now? I haven't checked all these references and links yet, but I think the tone isn't promotional anymore. I'm hoping for an all-expenses paid trip to the Laurentian mountains and a weekend of splurging and shopping in Montreal--oh yes I'm on the take. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess it's ok though the lead needs a rewrite. BTW, shouldn't the article be at Naya (bottled water) or something like that?--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you see ...

... THIS ?! Abecedare (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your WP:3O at A Guide to PMBOK

User:RegentsPark, I wanted to thank you for your WP:3O at Talk:A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Sadly, it appears that the other party in the issue isn't willing to compromise and doesn't think that either of us has the expertise to touch his article. Consequently, I've listed it at WP:WQA#User:Pm master and policy v. expertise in the hope that someone there will be able to communicate with him.

Anyhow, I just wanted you to know that I appreciated your effort, and if you want to continue to help out on this article, I (for one) would be grateful. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. But I'm not sure if WQA is the right forum. An RfC may be more appropriate but perhaps WQA will bring more eyes on the article, and that won't hurt. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought about taking it to WP:RFCC, but at that point, there wasn't the required 2 opinion from another editor on his talk page. There is now, but I think I'll give him the weekend and see after that if he's responded to any of what's happened so far. I'll let you know if I start up an RFC, and thanks! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Move of Margaret of Valois?

Seriously? There was no consensus for a move. Clearly. If there's no consensus and one side is making nonsense arguments, that's one thing, but this was clearly an issue of personal preference and such. That you prefer Margaret of Valois does not mean there was a consensus for a move. If this is how it works, why didn't I just hold back for the whole move discussion, and then swoop in to close as no consensus because I think the argument against the move was better? Obviously[REDACTED] isn't a democracy, but closing editors don't get to decide that there's a consensus when there's not one. john k (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Regent,
Will all respect due you & your position as a Misplaced Pages Administrator, I was surprised at the speed with which you took the decision for the move of Marguerite de Valois to Margaret of Valois, as it seems to me that you totally ignored the on-going discussion, further down the page in the Google books section, pointing to a trend to compromise, changing the title to Marguerite of Valois, thus keeping the French first name and changing the de to of. Although this was not my preference, I was going to vote for the compromise. I also thought that, if we waited a few more days, more readers would enter the discussion & vote for one of the three proposed titles.
You based your decision on Encyclopædia Britannica, but Misplaced Pages is not EB, otherwise, why not simply copy its 1911 edition, which is now in the public domain, and forget about creating a never-heard-of before type of work in which people from all walks of life & from all around the world can participate in en:wiki ?
As I mentioned in one of my comments, Encyclopædia Britannica is shaking off its cobwebs, and one can read in its Margaret of Valois article, 2009 online edition: Catherine de Médicis & Marie de Médicis:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/364625/Margaret-of-Valois
This is not to suggest that the articles on Catherine & Marie de' Medici be moved to their name in French, but to show you that even names in articles of the much respected Encyclopædia Britannica are not set in stone.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm sorry this is generating so much heat! Any decision in a situation where the editors are split down the middle is bound to dissatisfy this half or that, but, in this case, I think that Margaret of Valois has the edge (slight though it may be). It should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway, I have no stake in the discussion and no personal preference for either name. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Regent,
Speaking only for myself (with no "heat" involved!), I was hoping that more readers would be given the opportunity to join the discussion that was still going on, and that a real consensus could be reached. John K. had spent a lot of time searching for material to prove his point & had come up with very interesting results that were leading to a compromise. As the argumentation was cut short, some of us feel that the door to the discussion room was slammed shut on us, with John's search done for nothing.
Regards, Frania W. (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The move being closed this way has no bearing on continuing the discussion (nothing is sacrosanct on[REDACTED] - well, almost nothing!). All the closure says is that usage and reliable sources don't give enough guidance so we should use what other encyclopedias use. If either usage or sources do give guidance, or if other encyclopedias are divided, then, the move can, and should, be reconsidered. So I don't see why the discussion room door was slammed shut. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
That's what it felt like. Thank you for explaining. Best regards, Frania W. (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting help

Could you take a look at my recent contributions to the discussion surrounding Mattisse, especially with regards to your fellow mentor, John Carter? I genuinely thought I was helping Mattisse by cleaning up that page and moving the contents, in toto to the talkpage. I've been, quite simply, under attack since I tried. I have appreciated your general equanimity, and seeming willingness to challenge Mattisse a bit, so I'd like to understand where you feel things went wrong. UnitAnode 02:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a look but would rather not comment if that's ok. I think you're initial postings in both this as well as the previous case were likely made in good faith and treat them accordingly. However, it is clear to me that there are longer term dynamics that involve Mattisse and many others who post on her talk page as well as the mentoring page (this includes mentors as well as the editors who comment there) and I have neither the time nor the energy to figure out what these dynamics are. So, I'll continue to help Mattisse by commenting on specific situations that arise - assuming I can get there soon enough :-) - and bury my head in the sand about everything else - Sorry!--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries, friend. I should never have let myself get sucked into that vortex. I won't be using that page again. Thanks for taking a look -- and for not questioning my integrity. UnitAnode 02:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Tinu nom

Very well written nomination. Reminded me the brilliantly worded User:YellowMonkey noms from times past -- Samir 02:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well it's not the RfA that counts, it's what they do afterwards..... :( YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't look at me - I'm still waiting for the wall street bonus I was promised! (Thanks Samir!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, RegentsPark. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 10:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan

Request opened by Moni3 here. --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:RegentsPark: Difference between revisions Add topic