User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 4

Amitav Ghosh
Hi.. I thank you for taking out the time to review my Edit as well as to write on my talk page. I will make the appropriate changes thought it might take me a while to collect the mentioned references. Thanks again. AdityaTandon (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Aditya

Thank you :D AdityaTandon (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Aditya

yeah, yeah thanks aditiya it's great that your taking your time editing this page and so am i. but you dont see me complainging about it do you? from H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.196.201 (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come! You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

British Raj
Hi there! Have replied (in absurd detail :)) on British Raj page. Don't really disagree with adding more details, but they should be added to the daughter page History of the British Raj.  The history section in the BR page itself, needs to be summarized even more.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:British India
That was a neat edit you made. I must remember how to 'nest' wikiprojects like that. Regards, Xn4  ( talk ) 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Best to clear the field - before the big game :-) --Regents Park (count the magpies) 18:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI
You've been mentioned here - you are welcome to provide your own input. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion at Talk:Wasilla Assembly of God
Hi. Thanks for giving a third opinion at Talk:Wasilla_Assembly_of_God. You gave as your reason for thinking the quotations should be removed that they were out of context. I respectfully disagree. The information which you acknowledge is truthful, and accurately sourced should not be removed. If context is the issue, then context should be provided. If the phrasing of the information is the issue, then perhaps the information should be rephrased to remove possible bias. To remove the information completely is to deny everyone on wikipedia the chance to make a decision regarding that information. The WP:COATRACK argument is completely invalid because it fails WP:AGF. Since the article is being kept after extensive debate (for the moment), the issue is not notability. I will be reinserting the the information after rephrasing and providing more context.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bhutan spam
Hi, I've added that link to the spam blacklist. Hopefully that will stop the spammer. Kevin (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I wasn't aware that such a list existed. Looks useful. (Congrats on your admin-ness BTW - much deserved!) --Regents Park (count the magpies) 02:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Newsletter - September 2008
This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

roy reference
Thanks for employing your sharp eye and removing that extraneous ref tag--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. Keep up the excellent work on the article! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
That's fine! I was just about to post the opinion, but I'll let you take care of it. I should have removed the Schopenhauer listing before I replied. Best of luck, Lazulilasher (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Schopenhauer
I would like you to reconsider your third opinion on the above. Basically you said that any relevant information should be in the introduction, as well as opinions, as long as those opinions were published by a reliable source. Since when do opinions and opinion language belong in an encyclopedia article??--Chrisknop (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I said that any opinion published by a reliable source should be in the introduction. I said "generally accepted opinions of reliable scholars". Historical facts tend to be slippery and hard to prove and so we end up relying on what the academic literature believes to be true because we trust them to have looked at enough material to draw a legitimate conclusion about what happened. Once they have drawn a conclusion, it should be acceptable almost as it it were a fact (unless something that disconfirms it, or weakens it, comes along). This is pretty much the way academia works. In this specific case, I cannot really comment on whether this is a generally accepted view or not but, if it is, and assuming that it is important in understanding Schopenhauer, it can be featured in the introduction. If it is not generally accepted (i.e., if there are enough reliable scholars who say that the it is mere speculation, then it should either not go in the introduction or should do so with appropriate caveats. If it is of no value in understanding the motivations and works of Schopenhauer, then it shouldn't be in the introduction. The mere unprovable nature of the statement does not mean that it cannot be highlighted but it is important that the statement be 'generally accepted' and that it be 'important', in the sense that without it we would miss something essential about Schopenhauer. Both these are for you and the other editors to work out, especially since I didn't see any sources at all. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical facts do tend to be slippery- I agree. It is better to say less, and be right, than to speculate with a lot of words, especially when you are trying to find consensus. Opinions about one's mental state deserve special scrutiny. It is not enough to say a scholar published it, for it to be true. When in doubt, stick to the facts. Biographers are like painters, trying to paint a portrait of the person, and they are more biased than others. --Chrisknop (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:3O # = zero!!
Zero left, wow! Does that mean Wikipedians are all actually getting along? :-) Fr33kman talk  APW 14:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess they've all gravitated to slugging it out on the RfA pages. Content - fuggedaboutit!--Regents Park (count the magpies) 14:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL :-) Fr33kman talk APW 17:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see
my note at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics. Input invited. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. Beamathan
Hello RegentsPark. Heh, you're helping so much more than you may think. :-) I'm not sure what happened to Beam, he stopped editing quite suddenly. He hasn't e-mail enabled. I guess we'll just have to hope that everything's okay with him and that he'll return soon. :-/ Regards, Hús  ö  nd  16:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And finally it is time to thank you. You could've changed to oppose any time, but for some reason that I fail to comprehend, you stood in the support field. More than that, you set out to dispute some of the opposes, and even researched (!) some evidence to corroborate your views. I was extremely impressed not just by your support and trust, but by such striking perseverance. Please accept my most sincere gratitude and this personal award (which I haven't given for a long time). Best regards, Hús  ö  nd  04:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT


 * Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
 * Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th 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 West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project


 * 349 W. 12th St. #3
 * Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
 * By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan main website

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 Meetup/NYC/Invite list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BUTTHEYDIDITTOO,ANDTHEYWEREN'TBLOCKED-IT'SNOTFAIR
Hey, I got that from the Administrators' noticeboard. By the way, G1 does not apply,that is for gibberish. A G3 migght have been better. So it goes. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made several of those from WP:AN or ANI and that's the first that ever got tagged. I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer 3O
Regents,

It is my opinion that your 3O on Schopenhauer was incorrect. A few more opinions came in and it ended up going the other way. Just to refresh you, your argument was that opinion words and speculation belong in an introduction, so long as those comments/speculation were made by an expert biographer. You wrote:

"Like I said on my talk page, a generally accepted opinion of scholars is akin to a fact." -RegentsPark

I have to say when this argument came in, I was astonished.

I would guess that you did not read the discussion, the article, compare the changes, and think about what is best. Instead you applied a rule, and although you stated the rule correctly, your application was off. In the future, you definately need to sit down and think about the issues a little more. In this case, it was one opinion by an average biographer about the motivation for Schopenhauer leaving his hometown. You should know that biographers often use conjecture and speculation, but to take those statements as truth is naive.

I have tremendous respect for you as an editor, but you were wrong in this case. "Generally accepted opinions of scholars" belong in some situations and not in others. If I did a biography on you, could someone use my words to conclude in a wikipedia article about you that you were high-handed and sloppy, just because it was my "expert" opinion? No, one could not.--Chrisknop (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinion: n. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Thanks for your kind words, Chrisknop. However, you need to understand that a third opinion is an opinion. That opinion may differ from yours, and clearly still does, but that neither makes it right nor wrong. The purpose of a Third Opinion is to get an outside insight and to use that outside insight as a building block for future edits, not necessarily to accept it as received wisdom. If you completely disagree with a third opinion (for e.g., if you find it 'astonishing', or consider it 'sloppy and high-handed'), you should question your own openness to views that are not your own rather than snidely dump on the person giving the third opinion itself (there is little point in shooting the messenger). Regards. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 18:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the above comments if they appear malicious. I get snide and witty mixed up sometimes. You really are a class act as a wikipedia editor. And you are right about the "opinion" distinction. Thanks for the comment, best wishes. --Chrisknop (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, the case as stated above has been distorted—which seems to have become a pattern for the editor who made it.


 * "A few more opinions came in and it ended up going the other way." - only one more opinion came in and it's cry of "we must battle to the final breath" was more along the lines of passion and not of reason. And it was subsequently mitigated. The issue is not settled. I placed a RFC notice but unfortunately no one has responded as of yet. I do not own the Safranski book but have ordered it through ILL. When it arrives I will re-inset the information with the proper citation.
 * "one opinion by an average biographer" - The information in question appears in all the standard Schopenhauer biographies of which I listed two, including the latest by the well-respected Safranski.
 * His assertion that that you didn't "read the discussion, the article, compare the changes, and think about what is best" and instead just "applied a rule" is not only highly presumptuous, to say the least, but down right insulting until you consider the source. Ironically, and amusingly, he seems to be applying the same "psychological assumptions" that he pretends to critique in the S. article.
 * Your third opinion was well thought out and deserved more consideration than it's out-of-hand dismissal. It seems to me that when one asks for a third opinion and receives an answer that goes against one's own position, it would show good form to respect that, remove one's edit, and at least re-think one's position.
 * Anyway, thank you for caring enough to get involved in a disagreement in which you had no personal stake. Congratulations on your commitment to the 3O project. It is a much needed service in Wikipedia. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Foxy Loxy's RfA
Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. Glass  Cobra  10:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Novels newsletter
The decision on the newsletter being only sent out to active listed members only was made by the coordinator User:Yllosubmarine. There has been 2 notices already sent out last month telling members to list themselves as active members, so everyone should have known. I can only go by what the coordinators suggest, but it does make sense after all the problems we have had previously with sockpuppets and having so many inactive members. Having no support for the newsletter has made it very difficult for me, even finding active bots to deliver the newsletter each month is a problem. So to have the newsletter sent only to active listed members makes it easier and is something i see most projects do. 03:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - October 2008

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  13:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Indian Religions article
I read your prescribed article and it mentioned nothing that I did was wrong. I encourage you to show the article to the vandal users of the Indian Religions article. - Nexxt 1 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Perhaps you should seek dispute resolution. You could seek a third opinion from a neutral user, or could go straight for a request for comment. Getting outside input is the best thing to do when editors vehemently disagree on the content of an article. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not the question of simply a dispute. It is nexxt1’s disruptive behaviour and the sources he is using. He is not even bothering to reply or enter into a civil debate on why he is using such sources. Then he goes to make wild accusations that Mitsube is my sock. He removed all the warnings from his pages and also the fact that he has been banned many times and once indefinately. --Anish (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right about your assumptions. Infact Nexxt 1 and his ilk claim that Hinduism is the world’s oldest religion and everything good in this civilization emanated from the Vedas. They claim Jainism and Buddhism are offshoots of Hinduism. After long arguments with we reached a sort of a truce or consensus on these issues. You can check it up on the talk pages. Unfortunately the right-wingers in India have politicized this issue too much. They equate India with Hinduism. Thanks for the offer on RFC. But I am not sure about it. It will consume a lot of time and energy. I have a full time job and I am more interested in bringing up the standards of Jainism related article to FA status.
 * Secondly, the way user  has taken over from Nexxt 1 after being blocked is very suspicious.   has already started canvassing with other editors for a full-fledged edit war. He is insisting on using same dubious references of medical and geography books to make historical claims on Indian religions page. Please check out this user also. As of now I have reverted his edits.--Anish (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The advantage of an Rfc is that it will bring closure and you'll be able to revert nexxt1 or angle reflection with impunity without worrying about getting blocked. (Though I totally understand about the time involved!) I'll take a look at the dialog with user IAF as well. Angle reflection does look suspiciously like a sock - you may want to report that editor. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 12:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re. A wikibreak barn-gift
Hello RegentsPark and thank you deeply for the barnstar! :-) Always nice to receive a compliment every now and then. Again, thank you! Best regards, Hús  ö  nd  17:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Neel Kashkari
Hi. I've nominated Neel Kashkari, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know, where you can improve it if you see fit.

You might want to check the hook, or copyedit (e.g. the last section)

Smallbones (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

IP
Just wait until they start emailing you as well. It's funny and easier to ignore. I never reply unless I know who they are. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir
that very same statement was on jammu and kashmir but the editor KashmirCloud removed it and the page is now locked to maintain the biased POV of india by editors like the grey and kashmircloud so unless this is very statement is removed from azad kashmir there can be no peace86.162.66.35 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Make your case on the Talk:Jammu and Kashmir page. I don't see anything wrong with the statements that KashmirCloud removed but perhaps we should hear what he/she has to say as well. Best not to get into an edit war on the Azad Kashmir page because then no one will take you seriously. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 19:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

then why do you find the statements removed by me on azad kashmir wrong they state exactly the same thing is there a hint of bias in the air you are after all a member of the india project respond quickly please 86.162.66.35 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that I don't think KashmirCloud should have deleted the statements about India-occupied Kashmir. However, just because I think he/she is wrong doesn't mean that they are wrong and we should give him/her a chance to explain. Removing the equivalent statements from Azad Kashmir would make it two wrongs and two wrongs don't make a right. I think that if you raise the issue politely on the Jammu and Kashmir page, you'll get a fair hearing. If you edit war on either page, no one will listen to you. So, once again, I suggest you make your case on that page. I will support you but have to head away from my computer for a bit so won't be able to respond till later this evening. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 19:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also explained my edits so case closed on azad kashmir unless edits are treated with equal respect like kashmircloud being given the benefit of the doubt i shall also edit and remove what i found wrong just like he or she did on jammu and kashmir lol talk page of jammu and kashmir is like a ghost town i dont think indian editors will like it very much either they obviously own most articles related to kashmir as is evident on azad kashmir so they can dictate there propaganda i just hope pakistanis wake up and remove there propaganda from wikipedia rather than just sit quitely while editors like kashmircloud get away with murder and if a ip like has to do it then so be it thanks anyway 86.162.66.35 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Further more kashmicloud didnt even discuss his edits on the talk page so why should i why dont you warn him of that then lecture me after you discipline him or her 86.162.66.35 (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not lecturing you. I'm just trying to explain to you that, in a collaborative endeavor like this one, it is better to take a collaborative approach rather than take an antagonistic position. Just because KashmirCloud did not discuss his/her edits on the talk page, doesn't mean you should not do so. Anyway, I've reverted KashmirCloud's edits for the time being because, on examination, the statements have been there for a while and I see no reason why they should have been removed. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 20:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for that reverti have a bad temper sorry you always seem to understand problems of others if i had power i would promote you to administrater level cheers 86.162.69.114 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Signature comment
I am one of those who much enjoy the varying talk link pipes in your signature (I mis-read "sink with my stocks" as "stink with my socks" at least once)—keep it up, they're great! — Athaenara ✉  03:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Hindi agitation
I quickly went through the article. It is like a treasure trove and I see the potential for improving the article.  Docku: “what up?”  17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Indian sub-continent
Perfectly agreed. My broad-ranging merge discussion was aimed exactly at this kind of solutions, as I could only identify the problem, not the solution. Since you have struck a very good solution, I am perfectly ready to throw my lot with it. Would you propose it to the appropriate talk page? May be, you'll also need to talk to Fowler&Fowler, a scholar among us. Let me know. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp's comments
Would you like to comment here? Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind but I've moved one of your posts and related discussion to the Talk:British Raj page-section. It is more relevant there. Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Hi RegentsPark! Thank you very much for your support and warm comments in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bhutan Remvoval of National Geographic Articles
I appreciate your desire to keep the Bhutan article as accurate as possible, and I respect your desire to make certian that there are no inaccurate references in the article. Yet, the article referenced is a work of journalism and was published in National Geographic Adventure magazine. It is defniitely not a personal travelogue as you stated. NGA has a readership of over half a million, all articles are fact checked for accuracy, and Kira Salak is an award winning author (Penn award, Associated Writing Program Award, etc ). A published article is a legitimate reference as far as I know in Wiki. You can see the NG version of the article at http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/adventure-travel/asia/bhutan-kira-salak.html, I linked to Salak’s website because the format is easier to read, all the photos that were in the original article are included, and there are no advertisements. Salak’s article is the only reference that exists on the snowman trail in the Wiki article, and so by deleting it you remove the reference for that section. If you still feel that the link does not belong, then we will have to get an arbitrator on this because I do not agree with your assessment. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeSturm (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comment from Marc S Nov 3 2008
I am quite confused by your refusal to include this link. I thought the entire idea was to make certain that all content was referenced. In the section that you linked me to it clearly states: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications." As the above person mentioned, National Geographic is a reputable mainstream publication, so, by the criteria of the very article you referenced, you should allow the link. I am new to adding entries so I would be interested in knowing your reason for not accepting a link to a reputable publication. I will also watch to see if this person puts it into arbitration to see what the admins comments are on this is, as it still seems to me the link should be there. Thanks! Marc —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSpitzera (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - November 2008
This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Grunt work
Would you be interested in doing some admin work? If so, I'd like to nominate you. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  20:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote of confidence! I am willing to do grunt work but am concerned that my workspace edits are mostly gnomish (no featured or good articles) and that may not be good enough for some editors. The Rfa process seems to be quite time consuming, so give me a couple of days to think about it. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 02:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in. I just wanted to let you know that I do share the enthusiasm of Nichalp in seeing you as an administrator. I am confident you will make you a good one. pls go for it. you can count on my support.  Docku:  What up?  21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * u r very welcome.  Docku:  What up?  22:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Persian problems
You recently contributed to an AfD discussion on an article about ancient Persian history. I have been reviewing the contributions of the editors who have been involved in these and other related articles, and have found a considerable number of issues - bad writing, original research, lack of sourcing or citations, and POV problems. I have posted the results of my review at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems (it's a work in progress, as I'm still going through the contributions). Please feel free to add to it and leave any comments at User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I would be interested in any feedback that you might have. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastan Malli
You tagged Mastan Malli for AfD, but did not create Articles for deletion/Mastan Malli. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I should have checked. !#$!# automation!! --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at 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) 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Classical languages and other states
I love this. Please see my latest edit to Languages of India. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * :-) I guess it was bound to happen. plus ca change and all that. I'm off to D.C. to petition for Spanglish! --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 18:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

References to www.kirasalak.com
You are welcome to that, as I said to another user, I simply don't have hours and hours of time to defend my entries and so will not get involved in the discussions anymore or make new entries. But, I do want you to be aware that with the exception of three articles, all of the rest of the articles on the National Geographic site only include the first two paragraphs of the article. Therefore, the links to the NG site are essentially useless, the only place on the Internet or anywhere else where those articles are available is on the Salak website, which is why I linked to the site instead of NG. I will not interfere with what you are doing, but I do think you should be aware of this.

Thank you.

Jake


 * I am aware that most of the web versions are excerpts. However, non-web articles are acceptable as references (for example, you'll see many books referenced). Again, I think you can make valuable contributions not only to the various Salak articles (since you know so much about her) but also to wikipedia. You just have to figure out what material is encyclopedic and what is merely general information. Four corners, for example, seems to be a well-received book that can easily have its own page. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 21:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, thanks for cleaning that article up.  miranda   02:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. I thought it was cruft and was set to nominate it for deletion but was pleasantly surprised to see that she does deserve an article! --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 15:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Salak Article
I left you a message but it looks it didnt save. As I explained to the person who made the CI complaint, the NG site only has the first two paragraphs of the article on their website (with the exception of Bhutan and two other articles). So, by putting the NG link you put a link to something that does not have the article, only the first two paragraphs. The only place where the articles exist is on the Salak site, they don't exist elsewhere, which is why they were put on her site in the first place. When the other user saw that you created a link to two paragraphs of text, they of course deleted it. I know your intentions where good, but you essentially made all of the links to a useless reference instead of to the full articles which were useful. Five weeks of my work in my spare time has finally been completely wiped out as this just spirals further and further out of control. I have read hundreds of books and intedended to put in entries in dozens of pages, but I find myself spending more time defending my entries than putting entries in. It is totally insane on this site. All I was trying to do was something for the common good. It is really tragic that your changes on Democratic Republic of Congo, which leads to one of the NG two paragraph two paragraph exccerpts, led to its deletion. That articler won the Penn award, second only to the Pulitzer, and is important with the current events there. As I said to other users, after spending over five hours writing defenses, talking in discussions and trying to get reason to prevail I am giving up. This is just outright crazy. I have other responsilities which I have been ignoring trying to defend my edits. I have no benefit from this, I was just trying to give the Wiki people some good references. This is my last and final login to my account. If you want to restore the links to the Salak page where the full articles are, that would be appreciated. Perhaps then they may not be deleted, but who knows. There is no reason here or logic.

Thank you for all of your efforts, take care.

JakeSturm (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection issue
Hi - Based on advice given, I have initiated a discussion on the semi-protection issue at the village pump. Your opinion, now over the broader topic and not just India, will be most valuable. Shiva  (Visnu)  09:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Africanus dispute
Hi. While I don't agree with your (third) opinion -- evidence in a subject is always better than conjecture, whoever is doing the conjecturing --, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time and effort to wade through the discussion and give an evaluation. --Doktorspin (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This wasn't easy because I know next to nothing about the subject and it took me a while to understand the basic issue. In general, I think it better to go with secondary sources, especially peer-reviewed secondary sources, because they reflect the accepted state of knowledge in the field. This is true in my own area of research (in my non-virtual life) and, I think, is particularly true when interpreting surviving text from antiquity (which is definitely not my area of research) because of issues relating to translation, interpretation, and the filling in of the pieces that are missing; all three are properly in the domain of experts in the field. That's my view, of course! Meanwhile, I found the discussion fascinating and it reinforced my faith in the deliberative process that makes wikipedia worthwhile. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: RFA
That's great to hear! It's been a while (3 yrs) since someone accepted a nomination. I'm hoping that I could let me know why you would like adminship (the pitch has to be really good, that's the clincher), and the core articles you have worked on, including work in the mainspace. I'll then write your RFA eulogy ummn nomination so that I can play down any questions of GA/FA. :) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the scruples seeing the way this is going: Requests for adminship/Aervanath. It seems a big deal is being made about article contributions. The mood would not be right at this time. Could I request that I work with you to help you get a GA over the next week? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not do this now if you think it is dicey. Doing something just for admin-ness doesn't sit well with me anyway. Perhaps next year! Thanks for the support though, it means a lot, especially considering that my single biggest run-in on wikipedia has been with you! --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 15:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I um e-mailed you. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I emailed you back! --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

classical
Thanks for that excellent suggestion. I am glad your suggestion was finally most agreeable to all.

Since you said I haven't the faintest idea about whether they are or not (classical)., i just thought I would brighten up on that a bit.

Kavirajamarga, the first earliest available work in Kannada according to wikipedia, It was written by the famous Rashtrakuta King "Nripatunga" Amoghavarsha I and is based partly on an earlier Sanskrit writing, Kavyadarsa.

Nannayya is the first known author of Telugu literature and according to wikipedia, Nannayya Bhattaraka (నన్నయ in Telugu) (c. 11th century AD) is the earliest known Telugu author, and the author of the first third of the Andhra Mahabharatamu, a Telugu retelling of the Mahabharata.

While Kavirajamarga was partly based on Kavyadarsa, Andhra Mahabharathamu in Telugu is retelling of Sanskrit Mahbharata. That is why it is not called independent unlike the Vedas or Sangam literature.  Docku:  What up?  20:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. What you're saying is that there is no equivalent to sillapattikaram in Kannada or Telugu. Are there any later independent texts in Kannada or Telegu that are both independent as well as written in Old Kannada or Old Telugu? --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 21:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * good question. I bet there are. Honest answer is i dont know. I havent seen any discussed in context of classical literature, may be not old enough.  Docku:  What up?  21:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I know what u r implying. pls read this subpage along with this for a better perspective.  Docku:  What up?  18:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why delete the Hindustani stuff
Yes, why delete it? I didn't! A better question: why blanket revert if you have one point of contention (thought it is a fictitious one)? Str1977 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Apologies accepted. But please consider my remarks about blanket reverting. One can easily restore something deleted without destroying all the edits. Thanks. Str1977 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ec. Usually, when well accepted text is deleted, one assume vandalism (esp. if fowler has just reverted!). Anyway, I see I was wrong and apologized on your talk page. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 00:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

SMRT
Hi, there are 2 companies running the MRT network in Singapore, namely the SMRT Trains and SBS Transit. The authorities refer to the system as "Mass Rapid Transit" :)&#032;- oahiyeel talk 15:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edit about Mother Teresa
Hello Regent, you left the following comment about the Vijay's accusation about Mother Teresa. I was woendering as to why you felt it was incorrect. The accusation seems to be pretty explicit in the article cited. Lets discuss. Regards.

''The stuff about dubious characters is incorrect. The article frames Mother Theresa's work in the perspective of 'bourgeois' guilt and economic imperialism)''

--Satyashodak (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I responded on the article talk page.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Port of Albany-Rensselaer
Although I've noticed your efforts seem concentrated on other more international matters, I did see you joined the Hudson Valley wikiproject with the comment that you could take photos. I just started an article Port of Albany-Rensselaer and was hoping if you are anywhere nearby someday and could contribute a photo to the article or contribute in any other way possible I would greatly enjoy working with someone with such a huge background in wikipedia editing and obviously from the awards, medals, and comments from other wikipedians obviously a fair and balanced editor as well. If you have some time I would enjoy hearing your comments and suggestions on the article. Thank you for your time! 24.182.142.254 (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately not. I have a home in Putnam County (but live in the city) and can't remember the last time I was up in the Albany area! Lower Hudson Valley is about the limit of where I can contribute . --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 17:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Reconsider Gomez
Your delete vote on Rolando Gomez was based on an old Wikipedia page that is currently displaying, when a newer version was placed in Miranda's box by admin Kuru, not sure why they chose an older version to discuss the 2nd AfD and I hope an admin will correct and update this as no has done so. The master list of links for notability on Gomez with more than one outside link on notability listed are on this page of links, that can truly help this article. I would also recommend reviewing this discussion for more references: and hit the "show" button on the right to see the full discussion. Thank you for your time. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. See my note on the deletion page. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 23:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Patton
Mr Park, would you like to complete the third party opinion that you began a day or two ago please. Frankly I am beginning to get sickened by the whole affair and how it seems impossible to get resolution of a simple matter like this.BillMaddock (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I had finished giving it! I'll take a look a little later this morning. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

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 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) 02:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

confused editor
I believe your confusing yourself with what POK means its a pov term used by Indians unless its removed i wont stop editing IOK pages got that86.158.237.94 (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We generally try to use names that are neutral as well as names that are commonly accepted. That policy is generally a good one because, particularly in disputed situations, any name at all will clash with someone or the other's world view and, without application of that policy, the article will be in an endless naming war. We have to have a functional encyclopedia so it is best to accept that and move on. You may, of course, open a discussion on the article talk page. Since you are well-informed on the situation in Kashmir, perhaps there are other ways in which you can make articles on that subject better. That will be much appreciated! Thanks for taking the trouble to edit wikipedia. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 12:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy, again
Hey Regent's Park, it's happening all over again--unreferenced smears called "media criticisms." You tagged them, in what I think was a genuine attempt at diplomacy and tact in the spirit of cooperation, rather than deleting them. I applaud you for your patience. I left a note on the talk page, and I may have been more polemic than I should have--but it's trying on one's patience. Do you think at some point more protective measures need to be taken? Kind regards, Drmies (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I was planning in swinging by in a day to delete the text if no WP:RS were added. Technically, the material should be deleted immediately per WP:BLP. I'll delete it later tonight and let's see what happens. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mysore FAR
Hi there, Well, my position is that Kingdom of Mysore violates three Featured article criteria. These are:
 * 1 (b) It is poorly cited: it cites two or three unremarkable sources, at least one of which is written by a historian with publicly stated Hindu nationalist sympathies; the sources show up nowhere on Google scholar. Meanwhile all the scholars who have worked on Mysore (which incidentally is one of the most worked over topics in early-modern and modern Indian history) are ignored.
 * 1 (c) It is not comprehensive. It creates a partial history of Mysore and can't seem to decide if it is about the dynasty (the Wodeyars) or about a state.  See, for example, my History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760 for a more balanced dynamic history.
 * 1 (d) it is a biased, revisionist history of Mysore, which glorifies a defunct dynasty of Hindu rulers, and minimizes the contributions of both the Muslim sultans (Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan) and of the British. Furthermore, it glorifies a princely state by turning it into a "Kingdom," when all the others (some older than Mysore) are called states, for example, Hyderabad State, Kashmir and Jammu (princely state).  Until their hand was forced, the primary authors were trying to get away with calling Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan the "de facto" rulers, in order that the Wodeyars could be shown to have ruled uninterruptedly from 1399 to 1947.  To put it bluntly,  it is one of the most blatant Hindu nationalist snow jobs I've seen on Wikipedia.  Read the version (from November 2007?) that passed the FAC and you'll realize what sort of garbage can become an FA.  They weren't even calling it a princely state then; I did that in March of 2008.

Please see user:Fowler&fowler/Kingdom of Mysore FAR (sections 1.2 to 1.8) for a more detailed critique and please ask me any questions you have. This is not a content dispute. It is sort of the equivalent of having the Mishra dude write the Indian rebellion of 1857 page and then turning it into an FA. It's that bad. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I haven't even bothered with 1 (a), which the article fails miserably. I mean the prose would not even pass a GA.  It shows that if you can round up enough people to provide perfunctory support you can turn any article into an FA.  This, in my view, is essentially what happened in about a dozen Karnataka/Kannada related articles that became featured in 2007 and 2008.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is Kamath who believes that the RSS should be teaching moral education to all Indian children and whose school textbooks in Karnataka were the models for the BJP's later attempt at juvenile brainwashing. The 1980 edition of his book (in which his name is spelled "Suryanatha Kamat") is available in some libraries in the US; however, the later editions (for example the 2001 edition that user:DK has used), where his name is spelled "Suryanath U. Kamath", doesn't have any numbers (ISBN, LCCN, etc. etc.).  It doesn't show up in the library of Kamath's own former university, Bangalore University!  I actually had an acquaintance in India call the publisher (Jupiter Books) and it turns out that they bring out "new editions" every year that are used in high-school and colleges in Karnataka.  These editions cost Rs. 65 (approx. $1.50).  My acquaintance ordered the book and sent me some scanned pages.  It had no real copyright information!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Our posts must have crossed! If you manage to locate the 1980 edition of his book, which I believe was better than the later editions, I'd be interested to know what you think of it.  Comparing the later version with some of the snippets of the 1980 version, I couldn't help feeling that someone other than Kamath had done the revising!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the 1980 edition according to the catalog. Title: 	 A concise history of Karnataka : from pre-historic times to the present / Suryanath U. Kamath. Physical Description: 	319, [5] p. : maps, geneal. tables ; 23 cm. Publisher/ Date: 	Bangalore : Archana Prakashana, 1980. I'll pick it up on Tuesday after the MLK holiday. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 12:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's the one. Apparently, there are a number of authors who started their careers working on gazetteers and later wrote books on history of the region.  These include, Lewis Rice, C. Hayavadana Rao, Kamath, and Chopra (although the last worked on the Indian gazetteer).  The latter-most two have been used in the KofM article quite extensively.  According to Sanjay Subrahmanyam (Warfare and state finance ...), all the gazetteer histories are based on Rice, which in turn is based on Wilks' History.  (See the section "sources and historiography" in my History of M&C as well as the references section for public domain versions of Wilks and Rice.)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mysore
Hi. Thanks for taking interest in this article. Reading Kamath's book would be a good start because he touches upon just about everything in the article. But please do be aware that there are no shortage of books that qualify the sections on Administration (inclusind individual Diwans of Mysore), Literature and Music. In fact you will find individual books on great personalities such as Sir Mokshagundam Visvesvarayya, Sir Mirza Ismail, all of who have been dealt with in the Administration section. There are several sources that dwell on the topics of religion, society and such, which has been used to complete this well rounded article. If you need anymore material, please do let me know and I can try to provide it for you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a thank you to an unappreciated volunteer who takes the time to work WP:3O. (And, yes, I would have thanked you regardless of your ultimate opinion.) Appreciate ya! Kelly hi! 16:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks (for the thanks!). You should try giving a 3O sometime. Giving a dispassionate opinion is enjoyable and a good way to de-stress in other articles where your passions may run higher! --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot  ( Disable ) 

Would you like to be an admin?
It's true, I will not be editing. I'm just about sticking around till midnight January 31/Feb 1, the time of my first edit to Wikipedia five years ago. Would you like me to nominate you as admin? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  20:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess so. I have some spare time these days (thanks to the state of the economy) and could make myself useful. To be honest, the question I'm going to have trouble answering is 'What admin work do you intend to take part in?'. I've given a few opinions on AFD, tagged a couple of articles for Speedy delete, but, other than that, haven't really hung out in admin type areas. I do lots of 3O stuff because I like it, and do give move opinions, usually on relisted moves, but that's about it. I don't hang out on ANI or AN or RFA talk or other places where admin hopefuls hang out. From what I've seen on RFA, that's usually a good reason to oppose (the lack of experience of admin areas). But, I can live with that and I think it unlikely that I'll change the way I edit just to become an admin. If you think this is not a long shot, I'll write up answers to the three basic questions. (BTW, why are you leaving wikipedia? Is it because you've been here too long? I hope you're not disillusioned with the process or the potential of this encyclopedia?) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 02:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All yours: Requests for adminship/RegentsPark :) Good luck. I'll answer your question and one to Fowler later this week. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've thrown you to the dogs :) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RFA test question for RP: Should Nichalp be blocked for violation of WP:NPA, or for WP:OUTING ? :) Abecedare (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For WP:Nominating. :-) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 01:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal at Talk:Kingdom of Mysore
Please respond at Proposal. Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  01:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA
Best wishes for your RFA --  Tinu  Cherian  - 03:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Blackbeard
The Blackbeard page seems to attract an awful lot of vandals. I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia community, but I understand some pages don't allow input from unregistered users; think maybe Blackbeard's time has come for that? (Thanks for doing so much heavy lifting on the clean-up there.) Vincent pearse (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're right. Protecting pages against unregistered users should generally be a last resort but I do notice several instances where the vandalized page stayed unreverted for a considerable period of time. Perhaps we should see how it looks over the next few days. (I wonder what attracts vandals to Blackbeard? Is there something out there in the popular culture that gets people to type 'Blackbeard' in the search box?)


 * Must be; I track a lot of the pirate pages and it's the only one that gets so much destructive attention. We now have a two week hold on unregistered users; hopefully that will calm them down. Vincent pearse (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Kathmandu
Hi there! Have you been to Kathmandu? 202.79.40.131 (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bombay
I didn't know your sister lives here. Which region of town would this be? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  07:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kemp's Corner (but will be moving elsewhere soon). I visited her last July (and may make another trip this March). Hope you're rethinking your plan to drop out of wikipedia completely. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 18:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmn, not very far from where I live. (I live in visual distance of one of the November attacked sites). I have to go, you will be there to continue on. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA
Good luck with your RFA. It looks like its going to succeed. :) Cheers in advance. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If it works out (or not!), I'll look out for an IP watching over the India pages! Best wishes. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 21:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin.
maybe premature, but hey - looks like a go. Congrats. Think I read somewhere that you were a little older than some of the other admins. GOOD, great to have someone to watch over these "yunguns". Remember to keep a protective eye out for us old folk out there. Congratulations again, and I hope you enjoy your new responsibilities ;) .. — Ched (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was hoping that wasn't excessively premature :-) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 21:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA looks like it will succeed so I'm getting my congrats in early! — Athaenara ✉  03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * YaY


 * Thanks. Going in, I thought I didn't really care either way but was surprised to find that I did! --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 21:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's probably a common experience, certainly one that I felt myself. Anyway, good luck in your new role. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA!
 Congratulations,, your RfA passed with ( 70 / 7 / 3 )!

Best of luck as an administrator, and good luck in general for the future.

&mdash; neuro  (talk)  20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That is an interesting graph! I wonder if there is some sort of temporal correlation between the spread and the probability of success of an RfA? Someone should mine all this data! --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 21:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess who is mining all of this data ;) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  23:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One of your first actions as an admin - issuing a thanks message missing a signature. Good job :D &mdash; neuro  (talk)  23:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. I'm doing this while robotically repeating 'sit down and do your homework, sit down and do your homework'. :-) --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * AWB is your friend! &mdash; neuro  (talk)  23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 21:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My condolences...
Sorry to hear about your recent RfA... I guess now that it's passed your life will never be the same... no more rest or sleep ;-)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I need a vacation after this. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 21:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congratulations on the successful RfA! I have always thought you'd make a great admin! Look forward to your continuing clarity and fairness on Wikipedia pages. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with the new mop. Let me know if you need help or have a question. Dloh cierekim  22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome for the support. :) Acalamari 00:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations from me too. Keep up the good work, now that you're carrying a big stick. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations , friend :) Btw i did this for you... Hope you wont mind--  Tinu  Cherian  - 04:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your message RegentsPark. Best of luck with adminship. -- Samir 05:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh look, your new mop and bucket have arrived. Use them wisely! Congratulations!!! Festive regards, Hús  ö  nd  09:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on your successful RfA! Serve us well! Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're going to have access any minute now. Good luck.  24.185.45.183 (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Btw, while I'm here, belated congratz! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Sorry I didn't get around to voting for you; I should have, you deserve it. Keepscases (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

NWFP & animists
The "animists" shown on the map you asked about are in an area now called the Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan, one of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. See also the Kalash, further north. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For your attention
I thought you might be interested in bringing some administrative insight (or clout) to Hindutash, where one editor with irredentist aims has been making POV edits for more than two years; this, in spite of previous administrative interventions by Dab and Saravask. See also Sumgal and Aksai Chin (and in particular Talk:Aksai Chin, where I explain the history of these edits. In addition one image file, File:Hindutash_in_Kashmir.jpg, which  claims belongs to the Simla Convention of 1913, but which seems bogus, needs to be deleted fast.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew I was going to regret this admin thing! I'm stuck with a problem at home but did read the talk page. Will respond tomorrow. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 02:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 22:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ah, the joys of adminhood...
You like them still? I have another problem area, perhaps--the Narmada Dam Project. Hopefully it is less contentious than Arundhati Roy, but this article also sees the removal of sourced material for the purpose of POV-pushing. Your attention is appreciated! Drmies (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still puzzling over what the IP who dropped the two comments above yours was trying to say. Weird! (I'll semi-protect the Narmada Dam Project if your ip comes back.) --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, I saw that, and I can't help you there I think. Too enigmatic for my taste. Thanks for keeping your eye open, as usual. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Regents Park, Many thanks for your support in both my RFAs, those were very kind and generous words. There's a full glitzy version of my acceptance speech here.  Were Spiel  Chequers  14:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Glider
Hi RegentsPark, I have a new suggestion up at Talk:Glider. All suggestions and comments are very welcome. Regards, AKAF (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 16, 2009


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 07:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Notification
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard, which relates to the now de-facto banned User:Naadapriya. This proposal, if enacted, would supersede the previous remedy, so all users who provided input at the previous relevant discussion are being notified. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Third Opinion
Hello RegentsPark, I would like to approach you for a Third opinion on the Article Ramakrishna. Now a dispute is going on about extensively concentrating on "sexuality" and cherry picked quotes from psychoanalysis. You may read, Talk:Ramakrishna, Talk:Ramakrishna for the arguments. The article is also plagued by personal attacks, incivility. . A neutral third opinion will be a great welcome. Thanks you very much. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. But, for a third opinion, consider posting on the Third Opinion noticeboard. That way, you'll get an unsolicited third opinion editor. Such unsolicited opinions are more likely to be accepted by other editors on the page. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 16:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ADDENDUM) Now that I've read the talk page, a third opinion is not appropriate because there are more than two disputants involved. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. Apparently the "eccentric sexuality" materials all came from the Cherry picked Book Reviews, while other book reviews which oppose this view were ignored, and other independent studies on this subject were opposed as non-notable. Thanks again for your time and comments. --Nvineeth (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments
I have raised comments you made in a past discussion here. To insure that I did not misrepresent you and your opinions, could you please look them over, and if you consider them inappropriate please let me know and I’ll strike them from my post. Thanks -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!


A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Callback verification
Hi.

Thanks for your third opinion on Callback verification. I think we need addition feedback since we are still at a complete impasse. I've been looking at other routes, such as a request for comment or formal mediation, but neither of those look appropriate at this time. Can you give me some suggestions about how to proceed? Thanks Wrs1864 (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Protect my edit in Hindutash
I call upon you to protect my edit of Hindutash for the next week to prevent "Edit warring" purportedly because of "Content dispute", to show your neutrality and credibility. You were just abusing your position as an Administrator at the behest of User:Fowler&fowler. Hindutashravi (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC).


 * I'm afraid I can't protect your edits. As I explained on the talk page, you are claiming that the pass belongs in Kashmir when neither the authorities in India or China make such a claim. I cannot protect that. If, on the other hand, you confine yourself to remarks that the pass 'was considered by some British explorers and authorities as being a part of Kashmir', do that in the body of the article rather than in the lead, and don't give that undue weight, then, if someone tries to remove that, I will protect your edits. Beyond that, I can't do much.
 * As I explained in the talk page, I've semi-protected the page. Any user, including yourself, who has had an account for a short time (a week or so) can edit the page. It is not clear to me why you consider this 'administrator abuse'. Personally, I think I have been more than fair to you. However, if you truly believe that this is admin abuse, you can take the matter up at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page.

--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 17:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:


 * Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
 * An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
 * News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
 * Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
 * Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

salting Dat Irby?
Hi- thanks for deleting the Dat Irby page. Since it has come up several times, can you WP:SALT it? tedder (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?
Hi RP, Could you please take a look at Talk:British_India? Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  04:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have moved the post to this subpage of my user page where I'm compiling some stats as well.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you saw this. Amazing!  I'm saddened a little, but on the other hand, we were forced to investigate the definitions of British India a little more and, in the process, learned a few things.  Does make you wonder though a little about this collective enterprise and about people's motivations.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI please see WP:ANI --PBS (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Are these RS?
Hello Regent's Park. Greetings! I had a doubt, are responses and rejoinders of scholars like these :, considered WP:RS? Thank you. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Both journals appear to be peer-reviewed, so that's not a problem. However, both articles are rejoinders, which, though referenced, are unlikely to have been peer reviewed. I'd consider them WP:RS under the following circumstances:
 * The content is not controversial.
 * The authors are well respected (have many peer-reviewed articles in the area).
 * There are other WP:RS that say the same or similar things.
 * Opinions are presented as opinions.

(Hope this helps! --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 16:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Thank you very much. --Nvineeth (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wsedr blocked indefinitely
Hello. Thanks for the block of. The account appears to be the latest sockpuppet of, so I went ahead and blocked it indefinitely. (See for more details on this sockmaster.)  If you feel this is unwarranted, please feel free to revert my block. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. Thanks for the heads up! --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 00:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

username?
I'm a bit confused. Is it "Regents Park" or "Regent Spark?" Your recent sigs have me perplexed. flaminglawyer 02:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Originally Regent's Park (I happened to be sitting in Regent's Park on a sunny July day when I made my first edit!). But, I thought a change of scene was called for! --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 03:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Gharjamai
I'm afraid the article was already AfD'd once, result was keep. Anish7 (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's too bad. I don't see what one can say that is more than a definition. I'll keep an eye on it anyway. --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 16:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)