Misplaced Pages

User talk:RegentsPark: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:33, 5 February 2011 editCaptain Occam (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,011 editsm →Comment on my talk page now deleted?: More accurate← Previous edit Revision as of 16:33, 5 February 2011 edit undoMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →Comment on my talk page now deleted?Next edit →
Line 123: Line 123:


:::::What you need to understand about this now, Mathsci, is that the problem pointed out in my letter has now been acknowledged by a large enough group of people that it’s highly unlikely something isn’t going to be done about it. Even Jimbo Wales has recognized the existence of the problem, in . Enough other people have gotten involved in this issue that even if I were to have nothing to do with it anymore, something would still probably end up being done about it, although the solution may end up being quite a bit different from what I originally proposed to Jimbo. (Which is fine with me.) It’s completely to be expected that you’ll be resistant to this change, since the lack of balance the way things currently are is something you’ve benefited from, but eventually you’ll need to accept that this benefit probably isn’t something you’ll continue having indefinitely. --] (]) 14:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC) :::::What you need to understand about this now, Mathsci, is that the problem pointed out in my letter has now been acknowledged by a large enough group of people that it’s highly unlikely something isn’t going to be done about it. Even Jimbo Wales has recognized the existence of the problem, in . Enough other people have gotten involved in this issue that even if I were to have nothing to do with it anymore, something would still probably end up being done about it, although the solution may end up being quite a bit different from what I originally proposed to Jimbo. (Which is fine with me.) It’s completely to be expected that you’ll be resistant to this change, since the lack of balance the way things currently are is something you’ve benefited from, but eventually you’ll need to accept that this benefit probably isn’t something you’ll continue having indefinitely. --] (]) 14:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::I have forwarded these comments to ArbCom. Since you seem to be criticizing ArbCom, I will leave it up to them what should be done about this. Many of your recent discussions seem to be some form of attempt by you to reopen or re-examine the evidence of the ArbCom case. That doesn't seem like a good idea at all and I am completely apposed to such discussions, even if now there is the benefit of hindsight and further information not available then. The whole idea was to move on. ] (]) 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:33, 5 February 2011

RegentsPark is busy in real life until May 2011 and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

See my Comments

See my comments here, I propose a rename of the article. Thanks --Sikh-History 20:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Replied on the article talk page. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject Novels initiative

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for taking the lead on reviving that project!--RegentsPark (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Wamalwa Kijana

You appear to have closed the requested move of this page as "moved" without actually doing any move. As both pages have history this needs an admin to sort out so I can't simply do the move myself. Dpmuk (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw that but can't do the history merge till later tonight. Will get to it. --rgpk (comment) 19:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Roll bender move

Hi, You say it should be re-submitted after its re-written, but I already did re-write it at User:Wizard191/Sandbox1. As such, it should have been moved; otherwise your request is inaccurate. Wizard191 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comment here appears to imply that the article is still about the device rather than the process. Given the content of the move discussion, I suggest that you finish rewriting the article first and then request a move. Shouldn't be a problem at that time. --rgpk (comment) 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The re-written article is about both. The content is similar, however it is written to address the process first and the equipment second. If what you meant was to have me resubmit for a after it has been expanded with more process content, then that was unclear by your closing comment. Wizard191 (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
According to Kotinski's comment, the rewritten article is also mostly about the device and I closed as not moved primarily on the basis of that comment. If you think my reading is wrong, I'll undo the closure and let someone else close it. Let me know. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 21:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No, we can leave it closed, because I'm going to guess someone else will probably agree with your conclusion. I just wanted to know exactly what I needed to do for the next time I propose the move. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Re: Jatt Sikh

Hi Fellow editor. Please add you comments here. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Tibet 3O

Hullo, happy new year! Just to let you know, I've extended the full protection on this for another week, just while you're working on the response. Obviously, when you're done, edit through it and remove it, or leave it up so that people can comment without the edit war firing up again. I didn't realise rgpk was you in the sig till I came here! GedUK  14:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I'm working on an identity change! Sorry about the flag of tibet delay. RL has been rearing its ugly head and I've had no time for the virtual world. But things are calming down so I'll get to it over the next couple of days. Thanks for extending the protection.--rgpk (comment) 14:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No rush from me, was requested on my talk page to extend as it's not quite ready yet. Take your time :) GedUK  15:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment on my talk page now deleted?

Hi, RegentsPark, apparently for user privacy reasons, some comments that were posted to my talk page were deleted before I had a chance to read them. If you had something to say to me that you want to make sure I read, feel free to contact me off-wiki (email is enabled on my user account), and I will take into account what you said. Or perhaps you can repost on my talk page if that does not implicate any privacy concerns. All the best, -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That's odd. I see no privacy concerns whatsoever in those comments. I wonder why AGK used revdel to remove them. Anyway, all I said was that writing a letter to the economist and then using that to initiate a discussion on Jimbo Wales page is disingenuous on the part of Captain Occam. --rgpk (comment) 01:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I’m fairly certain that the reason the page revisions were deleted is because two of the comments there were personal attacks from Slrubenstein using part of my real name, and bringing up off-Wiki information about me (from my blog) that I’ve never voluntarily disclosed here. (I say “voluntarily” because Mathsci has brought it up on-Wiki against my consent in the past, which was one of the things that led to his topic ban in the R&I case.) The real privacy issue was the content of my blog, although the personal attacks also were problematic regardless of whether he referred to me by my real name or my Misplaced Pages alias. I don’t think your comments were violating any policies, RegentsPark, but when RevDel is being used for comments it’s generally necessary to delete all of the page revisions containing the comments, which in this case included the page revision where your own comment was added.
I think it’s interesting, and more than a little ironic, how well this situation demonstrates the point that I made in my letter and that Sandstein made in his ArbCom application. We had one sysop (Slrubenstein) who was making personal attacks against an editor whom he dislikes, and another sysop (you) who didn’t appear to care, since you replied to them in an uncritical manner. It took a third sysop, AGK, to recognize that there was anything wrong with the comments. If I had said the exact same thing about Slrubenstein that he was saying about me, on the other hand, I’m sure you would’ve either warned me yourself or reported me at AN/I or AE. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Captain Occam, since you've disclosed your identity on-wiki by linking to the letter in the economist, I really don't see any privacy concerns here. Personally, I would not use your real life name on-wiki but there is no policy prescription against doing that and revdel should only be used if an editor is outed, which is not the case here. However, I don't see the big deal either way so let's just let this go. (I'm afraid I can't recall what sirubenstein wrote so can't comment on your last statement - except that I haven't yet ever reported anyone to ANI and have no intention of making a start there!) Regards. --rgpk (comment) 14:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Continuing to repeat claims, misinterpretations and misrepresentations made during WP:ARBR&I, but not accepted by ArbCom itself, seems the least likely way of having ArbCom sanctions lifted. Similarly claims of unfair treatment and victimisation. Captain Occam was instrumental in starting the ArbCom case, which he did with great enthusiasm and application. It is regrettable that he does not seem so far to have come to terms with the consequences of those actions. Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Your claim that I’m a holocaust denier was referencing an old blog entry of mine from before I’d become active at Misplaced Pages, and this was the only example of a personal attack from you that ArbCom specifically described in your finding of fact, rather than just linking to the diff. You’ve also forgotten that the ArbCom case was requested by Rvcx, and when he asked me about the possibility of arbitration here, I made it clear that I didn’t really want it. The attitude I expressed there about his requesting arbitration was enthusiasm? Really?
What you need to understand about this now, Mathsci, is that the problem pointed out in my letter has now been acknowledged by a large enough group of people that it’s highly unlikely something isn’t going to be done about it. Even Jimbo Wales has recognized the existence of the problem, in this comment. Enough other people have gotten involved in this issue that even if I were to have nothing to do with it anymore, something would still probably end up being done about it, although the solution may end up being quite a bit different from what I originally proposed to Jimbo. (Which is fine with me.) It’s completely to be expected that you’ll be resistant to this change, since the lack of balance the way things currently are is something you’ve benefited from, but eventually you’ll need to accept that this benefit probably isn’t something you’ll continue having indefinitely. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have forwarded these comments to ArbCom. Since you seem to be criticizing ArbCom, I will leave it up to them what should be done about this. Many of your recent discussions seem to be some form of attempt by you to reopen or re-examine the evidence of the ArbCom case. That doesn't seem like a good idea at all and I am completely apposed to such discussions, even if now there is the benefit of hindsight and further information not available then. The whole idea was to move on. Mathsci (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)