User talk:RegentsPark/Archive 6

Adil your
Do you know anything about Prithviraj. I suspect his edits to that page are rubbish as well  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. But I'll take a look. Adil your seems to take vague statements from marginal sources and elevate them to the status of well-known fact.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. It is hard to figure out what is fact and what is legend in this story. It seems to me that both sides are warring over the legend. I went back to the version before adil your first edited and that is hardly reasonable either. Not sure what I can do without a good book on Indian history and I have none handy. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are you to call my edits rubbish when I am providing sources from books WP:RS whereas you know nothing about the topic... Why are you so angry about my edits, I maintain a very NPOV and WP:RS and your "suspicions" and plainly out of Anger.... Kindly keep in mind wp:civil policy before calling someone rubbish... Adil your (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

MKG
After my initial reply at the talk page, I had considered pinging Classicfilms and you for your informed input on the subject, and as a sanity check. Given the pleasant direction the discussion has now taken, I am so glad I at least avoided accusations of canvassing! C'est la vie sur wikipedia Abecedare (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I took that seriously and was amazed at the speed with which it deteriorated!  --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba
Hi RegentsPark.
 * Earlier you had helped the editors working in the Sathya Sai Baba article by sharing your neutral perspective in the talkpage and other discussions. I would also like to appreciate the fact that you were one of the first outside editor to raise concerns about the WP:BLP issues in the article. The article has definitely become more neutral and has come a long way from where we started. I have one more request.
 * I will appreciate if you will share your thoughts to this following discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_this_a_reliable_source.3F


 * Thanks once again. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey there!
I always come to bring you happy greetings and trouble--well, the greetings are virtual, the trouble is somewhat real, over at Khatri, where I'm having a bit of a dispute with an IP but more importantly a couple of guys are duking it out over who is rightfully related to whom. Care to have a look? I'm thinking about handing out a couple of warnings for incivility and all, but it would help to have someone who actually knows this stuff--oh, that's you! Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's a khatri? I'll take a look but .... --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ThankyouthankyouthankyouIknewIcouldcountonyou. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, those khatris. Looks like the article is already protected and under control. The IP is right you know, why say performed when you can use excelled and extensive instead! :-) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha yes. Thanks anyway. You doing alright? I need to go and check if you're meeting your quota for bans and blocks, and if you don't hear from me here, you can find my report on WP:ANI. Your talk page is a bit quiet, without a lot of complaints and drama--you must be doing something wrong. Drmies (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait till you become an admin - absolute power corrupts .....! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter, Volume IV, Issue 2 – July 2009
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. Delivered automatically by --  Tinu  Cherian BOT  - 15:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ric Flair
Thanks, I was going mad from edit conflicts. Now I can close my browser and go to sleep. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good night! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism
Please refrain from such unproductive behavior in the future. Replace the dead reference link rather than removing the entire sentence. Thanks --Nosedown (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

dupilcate category
could you please delete Category:Attorney Generals of India which I created and turned out to be a duplicate of Category:Attorneys General of India. Though, "Attorneys General" doesnt sound right. Thanks. -- L  I C  12:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. (I like the new signature!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Face-smile.svg -- L  I C  12:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion on Minister for Men
Yes, the dispute still exists, in that the prior "Key Priorities" section has been condensed down to a single paragraph, but is still referenced to a single article published in a blog. The entire article is, in my opinion, a POV platform for a single editor who is trying to air his "men's rights" platform. I have been unable to convince the author to keep a neutral tone, and I was hoping a third pair of eyes would help. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Race and crime article?
I would like to create an article on the controversy regarding certain ethnic groups’ over-representation in prisons. This is a major political issue that’s clearly notable, and Wikipedia currently does not have an article about it. Race and crime currently redirects to Anthropological criminology, which is an obsolete field of study based on phrenology, with very little to do with the current controversy. I’ve been told that since you’re the person who protected the redirect for Race and crime, I should discuss this with you.

Race and crime used to cover this topic, but all of the statistical information was scrubbed from it during a revert war in summer and fall of 2008. The relevant page in the article’s history is here. The removal of these statistics was done without consensus, and there does not appear to have been any appropriate reason for it to be removed. After the statistics had been removed, however, the Race and crime article no longer contained any content which wasn’t a duplicate of information already contained in Anthropological criminology, so eventually the former article was merged into the latter.

I would appreciate your input on the idea of Wikipedia having an article on this current controversy, which is quite different from Anthropological criminology. The relevant discussion page is here. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look and get back to you in a bit. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded on the article talk page. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.


 * This issue is kind of complex, so I'd appreciate discussing it with you there to make sure this is the most appropriate solution. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. The problem with this is that it is a bald recitation of the racial breakdown of crime in various countries followed by an interpretations section that would better fit in the Anthropological criminology article. So, the only new thing is the statistics and that is not enough for an article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, only the historical interpretations described there would be considered anthropological criminology. None of the modern approaches are part of that field.


 * But in any case, I know that the article needed to be improved. It was a work in progress, and I hadn't yet spent very much time on it.


 * As I said on the Anthropological criminology discussion page, I think the current controversy regarding these statistics is notable enough that it should be included somewhere on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure what the best place for it is. I don't think it belongs in the Anthropological criminology article, because anthropological criminology is a single way of interpreting these statistics which is no longer used, and therefore has very little to do with the current issue.  Where do you think is the best place to cover this controversy? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I’m sorry if I’m badgering you, but I need your advice about this. You’ve suggested that I incorporate the information into a new article, but if I’m going to do that I need to know which article I should add it to.  Verbal has also suggested that I create a new article about this in my userspace, and have it added to the encyclopedia after I’ve made it good enough for that, but if I’m going to do this I need to first make sure you’d be willing to unprotect Race and crime when and if I create a satisfactory article on that topic.   If I’m going to take Verbal’s suggestion, I’d also like to be able to periodically get your advice about what things I still need to change about the article in order to make it acceptable. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I was traveling all morning! My suggestion is that you do what verbal suggests, which is create an article in userspace. You don't have to create the entire article, just enough to demonstrate that the article is substantially different from the original Race and crime (and worth keeping!). Then, perhaps, you can either convince verbal or look for consensus on the talk page of anthropological criminology. On this particular topic I would rather judge consensus than make judge content. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

State terror
Sadly the Pakistani section of the page is being vandalised by Indian trolls this time Arjun please remove his saffron vedic edits cheers 86.158.236.180 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with the Discussion
Hi RegentsPark. I would greatly appreciate your feedback in the following discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question.
 * Thanks, Radiantenergy (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RP, can you also take a look at my comment there? Abecedare (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I replied to your questions in the reliable source notice board. Thanks.Radiantenergy (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I originally typed the following message in response to your comment at RSN. Only after I had saved it, did I realize that it was refuting a point about Jain's wider reliability that you never made. So I self-reverted and am instead sticking the comment here ... mainly to preserve my typing-effort. :-)
 * I share your opinion about how variable documentaries can be, especially in their tone and balance. Don't know how the particular BBC documentary holds up, since I haven't seen it (was tempted to ... for a minute, but David Attenborough's work holds greater attraction for me :-)).
 * I still disagree on the reliability of Sandhya Jain's columns even for basic facts (I am not talking about hyperbole here). Of course, I trust that some of the (selective) facts she quotes are indeed true, but without knowing which ones a priori how does one separate the wheat from the chaff ? For example, I cannot reconcile "on April 7 the plaintiff self-dismissed his own lawsuit." with the court record. There are several similar, arguably trivial, discrepancies. I may possibly be interpreting the court record incorrectly, but the fact that we cannot be confident that the columnist got even these factual details right, is the very reason the source cannot be considered reliable (in real world or on wikipedia).
 * PS: While googling I found these userspace links: . This lawsuit has been the subject of wiki-debate for three years now. Wow!
 * Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Would I miss the opportunity to read a deleted comment - no way! I had already read it and popped a question on your talk page. This issue is, IMO, more complicated than most because it is hard to deny the existence of these allegations, the encyclopedia can't just ignore them, but they are, after all, nothing more than allegations.

In response to your question: Oh, the newspaper is certainly reliable enough. Sandhya Jain is a opinion columnist (not a reporter) for the paper. I regard editorial columns non-ideal sources for facts, in general. Furthermore, this particular columnist's work is not only polemical but also contains selective and provably incorrect "facts", which makes me regard her columns as a very poor source for anything besides her views. In case you are wondering, I had not heard of Sandhya Jain or of Alaya Rahm till I responded at RSN. Abecedare (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hindutashravi Continued from Archives
To User:YellowMonkeyand User:RegentsPark : YellowMonkey is so unscrupulous and does not have the minimum basic decency and courtesy to confer with me in accordance with the principle of  Audi alteram partem  before blocking my access to Wikipedia for the alleged unintelligible and  incomprehensible so-called reason which reads, “spa; one guy reverting  about five and over”, and knowing fully very well that I am unable to communicate to him/her in his/her talk page, and when I send him an email asking for clarifications vide email sent through Wikipedia dated 7, July, he deliberately since his intentions are malafide and ulterior,  and given his  total lack of decency and courtesy,  prefers to willfully  ignore it till the period of blockage itself expires on July 7  and my  email is rendered infructuous  since the period of blockage is itself to expire on 7 July. As though his deliberate act of not replying to my email is not outrageous and despicable enough, and speaks volumes of his morality or the lack of it, he actually arbitrarily and unilaterally extends it to 16 July for the alleged reason that I have tried to circumvent the blockage, which I have the right to do and was justified in doing so because of his nefarious conduct. It can be seen from edit summaries of my reversions like the one dated 21, June 2009 which reads, “Reverted to previous NPOV edit as edited by User:DrilBot. Those indulging in vandalism and Original Research not reciprocating my attempt to arrive at consensus”, that the reason for my reverts was that inter alia  User:RegentsPark and his coterie were  also recklessly reverting my NPOV version  with out appreciating my endeavour to arrive at a consensus  and it should have been inter alia--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) who ought to have been blocked! And thenUser:RegentsPark maliciously with an ulterior motive (mis)uses it as an excuse to protect the POV version of his accomplice User:Fowler&fowlerstating that I have tried to evade the block, when in the first place, he ought to have been oblivious of the block in the first place. The fact that he was aware of the blockage ipso facto proves that it was at his instigation and behest that User:YellowMonkey did it. What obviously prompted--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) to get User:YellowMonkey to block me was my “audacity”  to thoroughly and conclusively  expose his accomplice User:Fowler&fowler, who had maliciously made sweeping statements against me  which I had all thoroughly disproved  and had in fact check mated him  and revealed the ignorance of User:Fowler&fowler and  --User:RegentsPark was quite aware of that and had to do some thing for his accomplice and save his face! User:Fowler&fowler after making sweeping allegations against me had in a manner typical of his personality stealthily performed the disappearing act from Wikipedia after making the aforesaid sweeping allegations, so that he won’t be called upon  to explain his allegations after my meticulous rebuttal of his allegations and false  statements. Propriety demanded that if he had to necessarily  make the sweeping allegations against me, he should have either desisted from making the allegations and postponed it till his return after his alleged vacation, or he should have not gone on vacation after making the allegations against me and remained and faced the repercussions. In fact, User:RegentsPark has been cantankerously been from day one been trying to victimize me and has been obsessed  with the perverted idea  of banning me from Wikipedia. He went to the ridiculous extent of finding fault with me over an edit summary! He has been misinterpreting, distorting and twisting   the observations of  User:Ottava Rima  who questioned him and raised pertinent issues, as though she meant that it would be better to deal with me rather than my edits! In fact, I regret that User:Ottava Rima did not pursue the pertinent issues that she raised but succumbed to  User:Fowler&fowler’s intimidations when User:Fowler&fowler in the first place,  had no right at all  to interfere when User:Ottava Rima questioned him. User:RegentsPark has stated on 12 June 2009   that, “ I see that he's involved with Aksai Chin, Sanju Pass, Kashmir, and various other Kashmir related articles. Quintessential WP:SPA. No point in just protecting the article and far better to deal with the user”. As a matter of fact, I had added a lot of details in the article on Kashmir and had long since stopped editing the article on Kashmir since the moment  the article had been protected by User:Tanthalas39 on 15, April 2009  and the protected version ofUser:Tanthalas39  actually retained many of the details which I  contributed! So much for his suggestion that my edits were my personal View and based on my Original Research and tantamount to vandalism! It was only after I informed User:Ged UK on 31 May 2009 that, “I am not going to permit User:RegentsPark and User:Fowler&fowler to state that the Hindutash pass in Kashmir is allegedly in so- called “Xinjiang”, which is the only thing they want to state and with out any basis whatsoever when the stance of even the Chinese is that till date the northern border of Kashmir is yet to be demarcated or delineated .” that User:RegentsPark was constrained to un protect the article. After stating that ,“I am open to the protection being reviewed and overturned by other admins..”, and “Finally, I've only protected the article against IP editors, not registered users such as yourself, and, since you can edit the article, I'm not sure why you're yelling 'administrator abuse'….Note that I cannot prevent you from reverting the article without further discussion and note also that, though I can do so, I will not protect the article myself because, I suppose, I now have an involvement in it”, he had no business to  protect the POV version of his colleague User:Fowler&fowler. When Kashmir acceded to the new dominion of India, she obviously had a territorial extent. As is depicted, to use the words of User:Fowler&fowler, “the Times Atlas (1900), shows the Hindutash Pass in Kashmir”. Un less there are any valid and legally binding   border agreements which can  bring any changes to the border, the territorial extent remains the same as earlier and does not change. As confessed by User:RegentsPark, “Boundaries are typically delineated by bilateral conventions”. Hindutashravi (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

G'day !
Thanks for your replies earlier on at Ayeyarwady River. On the talk page I posted this: "I've found a rather in-depth report on the biodiversity in the Delta region here. My idea is to add it to the (yet to be written..) Ayeyerwady river fauna section, rather than in the Irrawaddy Delta article with only a brief mention here in the main river article. After all, this is the 'main' page, and as the delta is obviously part of the river, the fauna in it deserves full attention here as well. If someone doesn't want to see it here but instead only on the Delta page, please say so. It'll take me a few days to put everything together anyway.

I'm very curious as to what your opinion is on this. Cheers, Pim Rijkee (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 27 July 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
 * Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
 * Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
 * Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
 * News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
 * Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe Delivered by --  Tinu  Cherian BOT  - 12:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - July 2009
The July 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16(talk)

Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB
I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.)  I appreciated that you took the time to ask me a question.  I enjoyed answering it and was glad to that you found my answer worthy of your support.  I also laughed at your "feeble attempt at humor" and your support statement really brightened my day.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Domaining
I noticed the controversy regarding the redirection of Domaining to Cybersquatting and noticed that you protected the page from editing. I find it astonishing in the least, as this frankly amounts to censorship. The cybersquatting page defines itself as dealing with the illegal activity of trademark violations. From my long experience in the Internet I have never seen any associations of illegal activities with 'domaining'. From perusal of source that deal with the subject, and the many businesses that engage in it legally, albeit perhaps objectionably according to many, I find ample justification for discussing the topic independently from the topic of cybersquatting. Please reconsider the lock of page domaining, see also comments at Talk:domaining. Kbrose (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded on the article talk page. Build a new consensus, or a halfway decent case for a separate article on Domaining, and I'll unprotect. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that User:FCSundae has nominated the redirect in question for discussion at Redirects for discussion. -- KTC (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Popped in my comment! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones)

14:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe, the draft of a new article for domaining, currently at domaining/sandbox, should qualify as a base to remove the redirect and reinstate a self-standing article. The article was written by a vocal protester (against the redirect) of the community, and copyedited by two independent editors. Kbrose (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming problem at Irrawaddy Delta
Thanks for your advise last time. Since you speak the Burmese language, and seem to know quite a bit about the country, I would lijk to ask you to have a look overhere. Could you give your opinion on this? Don't know if it is the right place for those questions though, if not, could you say where to post the naming-problem stuff? Thanks, Pim Rijkee (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 3 August 2009 ==


 * News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Out of the office? AGAIN?
You are traveling...ah you Europeans (that is, Europeans living in Europe), always on vacation, traveling the world like life wasn't supposed to be nothing but drudgery. I need to teach you Puritanism one of these days. Listen, if you have a moment--sitting with your laptop overlooking Lake Lugano or the spice market of Stone Town--can you have a look at this? I could have used this a couple of times, but I don't know a. how to properly make and administrate templates and b. if other editors would find this useful at all. Thanks, and happy trails! PS I could do with some harissa, if you're going through Tunisia. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stone Town is next summer. And, what do you mean by European - Freedom fries for me, please! And no wandering in the souqs, just working with an occasional trip to a wet market or two. So, I can't do harissa, but I can stock up on sambal!--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I took the Regents Park thing too literally. Kinda dumb, given that I now recall the NY thing. 1-2-1-2 keep it on! Sambal is close enough--I love the stuff. I'm going to make my own harissa; tune in again in a couple of weeks. So where you going? Far east? Drmies (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Traveling around though with a work base in .... there is an obvious clue in my away message!--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oooooh nice...keep us posted! No, don't--I saw on the news that burglars also follow Twitter and Facebook--possibly Wikipedia as well. Think of us while we're plugging away, paying the mortgage. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Domaining
A new user named DomainDeveloper has just registered an account, and as his first edit he linked to this website. He then quickly reverted his own edit, which leads me to believe it was a mistake. Nevertheless I take this as evidence that he is the user who created the domaining article and has returned to try to find a way to get it restored. I thought I'd let you know about this since you were involved in closing the AfD. This is cross posted to Cirt's talkpage as well. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 18:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaonly, aka Dramain
 Kayau  Wuthering Heights  VANITY FAIR   paradise lost  04:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 10 August 2009 ==


 * Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
 * News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 17 August 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
 * Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
 * News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - Narnia Task Force
Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by Srinivas to encourage users to join Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code:

-- Alan16 (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Race and crime article new draft
Following your suggestion here, I've created a  draft of a new version of the Race and crime article. It's been rather difficult, though, because I haven't been able to find anyone else to help contribute to this. The only edit from someone other than me was from Verbal, attempting to wipe all of the statistical information from it again, even though consensus has already established that this information should not be removed. I would appreciate you taking a look at this draft sometime soon, and letting me know what (if anything) still needs to be changed about it before it can be added back to the encyclopedia. If it still needs more work, I would also appreciate you helping me identify someone else who can help with this. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC) :I'm in the process of wending my way home, so this may take a week or so but I'll take a look. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC) ::Are you ready to look at it yet? I recall seeing you say that you'd be back from your trip on September 2nd. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC) :::Sorry about that. I am back but the labor day holiday is distracting. Will look at it on Tuesday. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC) ::::I have a few more questions about how to improve this article (some of which I've asked on its discussion page), if you have the time. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC) :::::Sorry to bother you again, but I’d appreciate your help resolving a dispute between myself and Verbal about the direction this article should take. It’s on the article discussion page. His opinion appears to be that the statistics in the article should not be included at all, because readers who look at this data might draw a racist conclusion from it (even though this conclusion is stated nowhere in the article itself), and that the admins agree with this decision and have been enforcing it. My understanding of your opinion is that the current problem that needs to be fixed is a style rather than POV one, and that these statistics can be included as long as they’re integrated with the rest of the article rather than in a separate section. :::::I think it’s important that this be resolved. As I mentioned on the article’s discussion page, Verbal’s disapproval of these statistics resulted in him removing them several times from the article’s previous version without obtaining consensus for this, and it’s going to make it more difficult for me to improve the article if he continues to do the same thing for its current version. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC) ::::::Will you be available to look at this soon? Before I follow your suggestion to contact some of the other people who worked on the previous version of this article, I think it’s important to establish what things do and don’t need to be changed about it. ::::::If you’re too busy to be able to do this, I can contact another admin for dispute resolution. But it seems like you’re who it would be most reasonable to contact first, since you’re already familiar with this article’s history. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC) :::::::At this point, I'm unwilling to unprotect the article. Feel free to take it to another admin. Or, better still, file a request at WP:RFPP for unprotection. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC) ::::::::I wasn’t asking you to unprotect it yet. I agree that the article still needs improvement, and I was intending to work on it some more before requesting permission to recreate it. I was just asking for help resolving this dispute about what sorts of changes that improvement should involve. ::::::::If you’d prefer that I ask someone else about this, though, I’ll do that. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC) (outdent) I don't really see it getting to the point where I'll be willing to unprotect. I don't want to lead you on, so it's perhaps better that you get someone else involved. I still suggest you ping the original participants in the merge discussion but it's entirely your call. Good luck! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)