This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RegentsPark (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 21 November 2008 (response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:02, 21 November 2008 by RegentsPark (talk | contribs) (response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives |
|
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)
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Help wanted | ||
| WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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&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#Third_Opinion. 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
 Issue XXVI - 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.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 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)
My RfA
|
Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Please see
my note at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Wikipedia_0.7_articles_have_been_selected_for_India. 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, Húsönd 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, Húsönd 04:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
|
The Golden Quackstar | |
| Thank you deeply. Húsönd 04:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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
|
Wikis Take Manhattan
|
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Misplaced Pages and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.
LAST YEAR'S EVENT
- Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
- Commons:Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)
WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Misplaced Pages 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:
- 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,
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:BUTTHEYDIDITTOO,ANDTHEYWEREN'TBLOCKED-IT'SNOTFAIR
Hey, I got that from the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#User_talk:Paaulinho. 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 Misplaced Pages. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You deserve this
|
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | |
| This barnstar says it all. For remaining WP:CIVIL when the heat is on. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
My RfA
-_Good_pic.jpg)
|
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton 19:36, 27 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. GlassCobra 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
Issue 27 - 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 IAF (talk · contribs) 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 Angle reflection (talk · contribs) has taken over from Nexxt 1 after being blocked is very suspicious. Angle reflection (talk · contribs) 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)
You got a thank you card!
| A Thank You Card! | |
|---|---|
|
|
Dear RegentsPark, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best.
Please take care. |
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, Húsönd 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 Misplaced Pages:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on October 6, 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)
DYK for Neel Kashkari
|
On 13 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neel Kashkari, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
BorgQueen (talk) 06:08, 13 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 03:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Nichalp's comments
Would you like to comment here? Thanks. Fowler&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#India in World War II page-section. It is more relevant there. Regards, Fowler&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 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
 Issue 28 - November 2008 |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||
This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP prod
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)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mastan Malli
You tagged Mastan Malli for AfD, but did not create Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mastan Malli. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 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!
|
New York City Meetup
|
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 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&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)
- BTW, thanks for cleaning that article up. miranda 02:27, 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: Misplaced Pages: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)
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 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 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)