Could you please vote or abstain on Motion 1.3 in the Matthew Hoffman appeal? It currently has 5 supports out of ten, but the new Arbcom is going to come in in two weeks, and then everything will be thrown into chaos. It has been up for three and a bit weeks, the appeal itself is a month old. It would be nice to be able to get this over with and move on, instead of leaving it to the new Arbcom to sort out.
Thank you,
Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 01:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bainer. I think you're legal expertise may help here. Do you know if pictures stored at the Australian War Memorial or its website are automatically owned by the AWM and PD under criterion E of PD-Australia. I didn't think that this was the case, but User:Abraham, B.S. thinks that I should be able to use them on Military career of Keith Miller - discussion here User_talk:YellowMonkey#Military_career_of_Keith_Miller_photographs. These photos include photos taken in the UK, in the 1940s, where a 70 years after death rule applies, but he is suggesting that an AWM stored photo falls under PD-Aus even though all of these photos were taken in the UK. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 05:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia 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. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot ( talk) 07:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
For your information, it is now possible to change a block of a user/IP address, without unblocking first. The way to do it is:
For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bainer, regarding your recent votes. I'm a bit pussled by them as regards me and as regards Molobo.
I have repeatedly asked that a comment be made on the way the diffs used against me were presented, to no avail. It seems to me as if in some cases the workshop pages are irrelevant to the decision process.
Since you are voting against me, and considering the comment you made, could you please provide me with some advice on how I can improve, especially considering my evidence analysis
Could you please also provide some feedback to these accusations, since in view of your vote on Molobo I would dearly like to know exactly what constitutes an infraction in these proceedings.
Regards -- Stor stark7 Speak 11:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
And I think it has been explained several times that having pro-German views or pro-German bias, nationalist German views or anti-Polish views doesn't mean one is a Nazi. Stauffenberg fought Hitler but he wanted Poles as slaves in Germany. Rosa Luxemburg was a communist leader in Germany and opposed Polish independence. And so on...Many examples can be given. Telling Polish users that Poles are like Milosevic or that writing to another user that a country belonging to Allies beheaved like a "rest of the gang" isn't exactly neutral or civil in my book.-- Molobo ( talk) 23:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I also wanted to make a comment on Molobo. I think your observation "that to date Molobo has stuck to the restriction" is very important (and correct). I wonder shouldn't it be included in the main text of the finding? He has not edit warred for many months; in other cases (Lokyz, Matthead) this has led to findings that they have not violated our policies - so I wonder why the case of Molobo is different? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I shall look forward to working with you on the Arbitration Committee in the coming year.
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of
Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best,
Risker (
talk)
22:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, although of course I did enjoy a nice warm Southern Hemisphere Christmas :) Here's a nice picture of holiday cheer under blue skies, Melbourne-style! -- bainer ( talk) 05:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Stephen Bain,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best.
«l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»
(talk)
Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! rootology ( C)( T) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again Bainer for all off your hard work. Here is some fuel from my tree to keep you firing in the new year! Happily retired from AC.... YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 04:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Stephen. Sorry to bother you with something minor, but I recently updated your excellent table of High Court Judges by editing the template directly. I'm only a novice, so if there's another editing step required in order for the 'transclusion' to flow through to the list article, I've apparently missed it. (Maybe I wasn't supposed to edit the template. ???) Would you mind taking a look when you have an opportunity? GlenDillon 09:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no. Policy does not support "deletions of mere dicdefs", and never has done. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is in fact our oldest policy, and even in its very first revision it took care to point out that whilst what Wikipedia doesn't want are dictionary articles, of whatever length, articles that contain nothing but a short definition of what a subject is are not necessarily dictionary articles. "short" is not synonymous with "dictionary". See short and dictionary.
What Wikipedia doesn't want are dictionary articles that give the meanings of, translations of, pronunciations of, inflections of, synonyms/antonyms/homonyms of, etymologies of, and usage notes of, words and idioms. But many encyclopaedia articles started as stubs, which do little more than define the topic in a few sentences, or even one sentence. (We also rejected, at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/12, the idea that 1-sentence articles could be speedily deleted, because 1 sentence could potentially contain a fair amount of prose.)
The current policy tries to show the difference between encyclopaedia article and dictionary article more clearly than the original did, but it's still the same policy that it has always been, excluding dictionary articles not short articles.
The only grounds on which short articles can be deleted, per deletion policy, are that it is impossible to expand the article beyond substub or stub status, because no sources exist. This is directly derived from the old "never will become encyclopaedia articles" and "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" category that were in the original formulations of the policy. It has nothing to do with dictionaries. Even then, as policy says, refactoring, renaming, merging, or redirecting into broader topics are often the answers, not deletion. Uncle G ( talk) 17:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
For this, I have contacted an Italian administrator ("Elitre"), but his answer has been something like solve it with the others. In my opinion, this is very bad. I reported something quite different from a quarrell. I attach here what I have written Elitre with a translation. I have just begun contributing to Wikipedia, but let me say that what I have seen is incredible, in my opinion. That is the reason why I have decided to contact someone abroad. Please acept my apologies for disturbing you.
Alla pagina Project management:
On the Project management page:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management
Un piccolo contributo di precisazione (peraltro referenziato) è stato cancellato senza preavviso.
A small specification contribution (referenced) has been deleted without warning.
Alla luce di quanto segue, si chiede un intervento.
Taking into account the following information, one ask for an intervention.
Le keywords della pagina sul Project management:
The Project maangement page keywords:
<meta name="keywords" content="Project management,Project management,Acquedotti di Roma,Approcci di project management,CMMI,Capability Maturity Model,Cardinis,Change management,Colosseo,Conquista della Gallia,Costo" />
Le voci correlate:
Correlated entries:
Voci correlate [modifica]
• Architectural engineering
• Capability Maturity Model
• Cardinis
Il link di cui sopra porta alla voce Cardinis: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinis
The above link leads to the entry Cardinis:
Dove, alla voce colegamenti esterni:
Where, under external links:
Collegamenti esterni [modifica] • Sito ufficiale
Cardinis è un´azienda???
Cardinis is a firm???
Sempre alla pagina project management si trovano i collegamenti esterni:
Again on the project management page, one can find the external links:
Collegamenti esterni [modifica]
• Project Management Institute – Nord Italia Chapter, PMI Centro Italia, PMI Sud Italia
• Istituto Italiano di Project Management
• Project Management su Open Directory Project (Segnala su DMoz un collegamento pertinente all'argomento "Project Management")
Nel sito dell´Istituto Italiano di Project Management, cliccando sull´icona “Soci sostenitori”, si arriva alla pagina “Aziende/Enti "Socio Sostenitore".
Aziende/Enti?
Tra le aziende (tutte con link), si trova ad esempio “QRP”, descritta come:
On the “Istituto Italiano di Project Management” website, by clicking on the “Soci sostenitori” [supporting members], one can find the page “Aziende/Enti "Socio Sostenitore" [“Firms/Bodies “Supporting Member”. Firms/Bodies? Amongst firms (all with a link), on ecan find, by instance, “QRP”, described as [they do project management]:
“Qrp S.r.l. fa parte di QRP Management Methods International (QRP MMI). QRP è la prima organizzazione in Italia, capace di offrire servizi di Project Management secondo la metodologia PRINCE2. QRP è accreditata (ATO) è può quindi rilasciare le relative certificazioni.
ISIPM collabora con QRP nella diffusione della metodologia Prince2 in Italia”
Per finire, sempre sul sito dell´istituto, cliccando sul link “Lista soci fondatori”, si trova:
To end with, on the Institute’s website, by clicking on the link “Lista soci fondatori” [founding member list], one can find:
“6 [cognome e nome] Cardinis Solutions s.p.a.” —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Salmon57 (
talk •
contribs)
11:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This was a double ... connection problems
I am planning to change the CSS ids used in MediaWiki:Revision-info and MediaWiki:Revision-info-current, to be in line with how we do for other such messages.
To make the transition smooth I will update the /monobook.css files for the six users that currently use those ids, thus you should not see any difference. You are one of those users.
After I have updated your /monobook.css you might need to bypass your browser cache to load the new version. (But for some minutes while I do the updates you will see the full versions of those MediaWiki messages instead of the "plain" versions.)
For more about this and if you want to answer or discuss this, see MediaWiki talk:Revision-info#CSS id change.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Stephen,
I thought you might be interested in this page Australian Parkour Association.
Grumpyyoungman01 ( talk) 04:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Dietrich v The Queen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. D.M.N. ( talk) 16:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Bainer, I don't even know if I'm writing at the right place, sorry if I'm wrong. I can not understand why you want to delete my article... I'm not english native, it's a bit tough... Well I think I have mentioned all reference tho. and all what I wrote is informative about the music and rock world I belong to. My article is not finished yet. I have many things to share and to add as a notable Agent and promoter in the rock world. ( but it already took me so long to type this first step of the article ) It seems that I am not notable enough to write on Wikipedia, all right I am not "very" notable but quite famous in the music world tho., working with quite notable partners as well. It's a bit annoying, I don't need any promotion but I think I deserve an article here, that's a bit... wow... It's all about telling the story of rock of the 21st century for the point of view of one of the only woman in the International Music World since 10 years (me!). A testimony which is my life and my experience, the life of my company, of my boss Franck Stromme ( very notable! ;)). Very rich and intense experiences I want to share, it really means a lot to me as "the woman" among the rockers in the industry . I have to tell the story so that the people can understand who I am, and what I, we are doing and want to do in the Music Rock World of the 21st century. Please, tell me how to do. It took me about 2 hours or even more to put all references and links. It's horrible. I thought I was right... Weeeee please keep my article alive ^^ Thank you All the best Nathalie Nbecquet ( talk) 06:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thank you for for your input. as a new editor, being involved with an arbcom case has been an an enlightening experience Brushcherry ( talk) 10:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
I sent you an email regarding the Prem Rawat case. Please let me know if you've received it. Will Beback talk 02:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you haven't voted (or from what I can tell participated at all) in my Arbitration case. Yet you're listed as an active Arbitrator and you appear to be editing nearly daily.
Is there a reason for this discrepancy? I asked another Arbitrator if you were planning to vote and they said you'd probably do so in short order, but it's coming down to the wire, so I'm rather curious what the situation is.
Thanks! -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 17:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say I had an allegation of sockpuppetry, as in a violation of SOCK (unless denying makes it ipso facto deceptive, and thereby a violation). I said it's an old user returned with a new account. What triggered your interest? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I know that the ArbCom is really wanting to standardize everything with ArbCom nomenclature, but why not rename AE Sanctions Enforcement (WP:SE, with WP:AE a redirect to it), and make it for all sanctions (Community based and ArbCom based). That's what it really is, after all :) SirFozzie ( talk) 06:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Your comments here and here are sadly deficient. WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:NOR are policies, not points of view. You're apparently opposing my request without giving the matter a detailed look. To make matters worse, you have been rude and dismissive. You don't need to agree with me, but you do need to give my requests fair consideration and a polite reply if you want to serve as an arbitrator. Jehochman Talk 09:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Stephen. Please condense your "data" on the current ArbCom case and name the editor who supplied the diffs and the commentaries. At present what you have added seems biased, because of the commentaries. (Have you recused yourself?) What you have added is (a) too long and (b) has commentaries by an undisclosed wikipedian. This should be easy to correct. Please adhere to the normal rules for adding evidence. Many thanks.
Mathsci (
talk)
16:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
One note: in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG/Proposed_decision#Blacklisting_dispute the link in the text is broken. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Stephen,
I hope this isn't inappropriate. I fear some of the evidence may have gone ignored by those who have already voted, so I urge you to read the evidence discussion page and perhaps also a couple of the talk pages from the relevant period before you vote. Apologies if you have done so already. MeteorMaker ( talk) 22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. [4] Durova Charge! 05:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've corrected subst'ed templates, so it may not fail in that cases.
On the other cases the problem is that there are <ref> tags (you can see them if you edit those pages [5] [6] [7]), but they are not shown in the article, because of the template where they are. So, that error is impossible to correct because the bot can't check whether they are or not shown. Muro de Aguas (write me) 13:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Does this help answer your question?
Ikip ( talk) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry that I edited one of your user pages without notifying you. Here is the edit that I made to one of your user pages. -- IRP ☎ 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please look at the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD page. [ [8]] Issues have been brought up which implications for all of wikipedia. Thank you, -- scuro ( talk) 04:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
my latest addition to [9]. i would greatly appreciate a specific response to what i said about collect violating 1rr and collect continuing his problematic behavior since the RfC. -- Brendan19 ( talk) 05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
One piece of nitpicking: You said in your endorsement of FoF 18 (re. my redirecting of the Macedonians (Greeks) article) that "The issue here is taking an action known not to be supported by consensus". I don't think this is a fair assessment of what happened. I said in the edit summary of that redirect that "consensus at AfD was that this page as it currently stands is not useful", and I did so because, of course, I believed in perfectly good faith that this was in fact the case. The AfD in question had of course been closed as "no consensus to delete", but that's obviously an entirely different matter – the closing admin had, quite rightly, not provided any assessment of whether there was a consensus for some other editorial outcome. But there was. Of the 14 people who had commented at the AfD, 6 had explicitly advocated redirection or deletion, 2 had spoken of redirection as a legitimate editorial choice without taking any stand on the article content, and of the remaining keep votes, one was the main article author (a known disruptive POV-pusher, now indef-blocked); two were very new inexperienced accounts, who had provided basically no argument for keeping; one more was a further simple "me too" vote, and only two users (both known national advocacy accounts) had provided substantial argument for keeping. Seeing, furthermore, that on the "redirect or delete" side I was in agreement even with two of the more experienced and most representative editors of the "Greek team", both currently my opponents in the Arbcom case (Yannismarou and Avg), with Avg having been for many months one of the strongest proponents of the idea that such an article should be created, but even he agreeing that this version should be redirected, it was my well-considered and responsible assessment of the situation that in doing what I did I was in fact carrying out editorial consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.
A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.
I write to encourage you to consider this when you vote, because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.
NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence
NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.
In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:
In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.
In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.
In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.
This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
In case you are not aware, the
Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current
GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community
has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect.
You currently have {{
NoMultiLicense}} on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NoMultiLicense template if you have any comments.
Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here.
Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Requests_for_comment_Is_Skinwalkers_evidence_acceptable_and_can_I_be_allowed_additional_space_to_respond_to_the_accusations.3F-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You blocked 71.240.124.170 ( talk · contribs · logs · block log) with {{schoolblock}} in the block summary but User talk:71.240.124.170 was not edited. PrimeHunter ( talk) 11:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Stephen Bain/Archive 14! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as needing a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:Hopwood Park services. -- Kudpung ( talk) 10:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll be leaving for vacation on Friday. I hope to get away for fifteen days although I may only be able to take 10 days. This would have me available on July 10th at the latest. I did notice the Doc James had posted for vacation time too with the clerk until July 18th yet the evidence and workshop is supposed to be done June 26th. I've just briefly looked at the post proposals last night and don't believe I'll have enough time to respond before I leave.-- scuro ( talk) 23:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't heard back from you. It looks like I will be gone for 15 days. I've been piecing my vacation together over the last few days and simply don't have time to respond properly to what is on the page. A response would be most welcome as this arbitration deadline is just one more thing to worry about when my plate is full. Please respond.-- scuro ( talk) 02:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello stephen, If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.
I requested speedy deletion on 1Apr for reason 1.6. jayron deleted it, then acted as if s/he did me a favour. I feel jayron shouldnt have been the one to delete it initially as s/he and I have negatively interacted in the past. Followups from jayron included an unneccesary block; followed by telling me to get a yahoo email so that I may contact wiki admins!
Wiki is all about anon editing : as such I didnt and wont get an email account in order to communicate as it is not required.
Since then jayron,redpen, mufka have been repeatedly editing my page. I blank my page they restore it. This has been happening since April, so for 3months now. I bet if I changed their pages they'd posting threats of "i'll report you" and/or "you will be banned". It is quite easy for me to get a new ip address but I dont think Ive done anything wrong, so I wont change my ip address.
If my pages needed to be restored /reverted, I definitely think those three arent the ones who should do it as they/I have a convoluted history.
If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.
If you could contact jayron, redpen, & mufka & ask that any problems they have they let an admin or arbitrator know, instread of making changes or posting to me.
I'd like to edit wiki in peace Thanks.
173.79.58.33 (
talk)
18:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As you suggested, I posted on the WikiProject Companies talk page asking for help evaluating positive/negative/advertising sourcing. Nothing yet, but it's a holiday weekend, after all...-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I undid your move of George "Honey Boy" Evans. He was actually known and billed under that name, so a Wikipedia-specific neologism need not be invented. Discuss at Talk:George "Honey Boy" Evans if you wish. Thank you much. -- Infrogmation ( talk) 09:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Stephen, if you want, use my template: to italicise case names in the infobox, just put in the two apostrophes. Wik idea 20:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I would ask you to retract your false accusations here. One person got blocked for outing. It wasn't me. I was never even warned. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to make the case that when the arbcom, after letting myself expose myself to the full force of a concetted campaign of attack by opening an arbcom case, let the case remain open for months, exposing me to hundreds of personal attacks which I had to document and prove my innocence in, that one accidental inclusion of an apparently non-identifying former nickname is equivalent to giving all those people actively attacking me in concert at that very moment my real name, and edit warring with an oversighter to keep the information up? Because that is what you are, at this moment doing.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk)
14:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
If you refuse to withdraw a harmful accusation when only oversighters can see the full truth of the matter, I believe that this is necessary. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Stephen_Bain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk • contribs)
Let me put it simply:
Me: accidentally links to a non-identifying former user name, not realising that it was any sort of secret, since the rename happened very publicly.
Them: Edit-war to keep up a harassment campaign involving outing me to my real name. This was oversighted, though, keeping it from being easily seen.
You: Imply that I am mostly, or, at best, equally at fault in your posts.
Please withdraw your accusation. ° Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 15:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Look, I'd love to drop this, but you put me in a horrivble position: The facts can only be seen by very few people, but your position and very uncautious comments have accused me of a very big offense, so I have no choice but to fight this. If you will withdraw, or at least significantly clarify your comments to make it clear that an inadvertent mention of an (apparently) non-identifying nickname is all I was guilty of, while the other side edit-warred to try to out my real name, then we can drop this. But, otherwise, I don't see how I have any choice but to take this forwards.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk)
16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree that replacing the former combo dab article for Hamer Hall and Hamer House, covering 2 of the former and 4 of the later, by the way you set it up, is better. I already restored the dab page and commented at Talk:Hamer Hall, and set up new Hamer Hall (Australia) with a merger proposal for it to be just a section within The Arts Centre (Melbourne). I further thought (incorrectly) that all the disambiguation for Hamer House had been lost in the process; i see now that you had set up Hamer House disambig page. So I am not as "miffed" as I was at first. Anyhow, I suggest the best way to treat these could be discussed at Talk:Hamer Hall. Cheers, doncram ( talk) 02:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Stephen Bain/Archive 14,
I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in
United States legal articles to take a look at
WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".
Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.
What you can do now:
Regards, Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 02:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In 2006, ArbCom made a very logical and neutral decision about China. I do not have any reason to believe that this has changed.
Question 1: Do you concur with the ArbCom decision? Question 2: Is it reasonable to continue to abide by it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Principles
Political NPOV
Wikipedia entries should avoid taking sides on controversial sovereignty issues such as the status of Taiwan and Tibet. Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense refering to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China i.e. (geographically) within Mainland China. (Historical and such 'old-name' Geographic and political references before 1945—1947 excepted.)
As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing regimes or governments) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan." For example, "Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China" is preferred over "Hu Jintao is the President of China." Likewise, one should write "one must be an ROC citizen to vote in the ROC presidential election" as opposed to "one must be a Taiwanese citizen to vote in the Taiwanese presidential election."
Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia should merely state the de facto situation that Taiwan is governed by an indepedent government/state/regime called the "Republic of China." When it is necessary to describe the political status of Taiwan, special note should be made of Taiwan's complex position. Thus, the term "Taiwan" should only be used when referring to the island itself. Furthermore, the term "province of Taiwan" can be offensive and should only be used when attributed to its source or referring specifically to the existing division under the ROC (for example, "James Soong was the only popularly elected governor of Taiwan Province").
The term "mainland China" is a term which can be used when a comparison is to be made with Taiwan for non-political purposes. Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, though under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is more appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting mainland China" than "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting China" as the latter could imply that Hong Kong and Taiwan are not part of China.
Passed 6 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The reason for asking you is that I recently referred an editor to this policy. I did so as a messenger, not a proponent. In fact, I am not too interested in this topic. However, I do not want to misquote ArbCom! Thank you for your response. User F203 ( talk) 16:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
On the basis of your proposed decision, you clearly believe that bans (from one or a few pages) can only be imposed by community consensus or other involved process. Everyday experience demonstrates that blocks (from the entirety or wikipedia) can routinely be made by individual amdins on the basis of no consultation whatsoever. Can you resolve this apparent disparity? William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Could you do an emergency checkuser please? We have a little thread going on AN and it appears we will need a checkuser to flush out some other accounts the user refuses to admit to having. Keeps claiming that another user knows or "my friend did it". Getting fishy if you ask me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, first of all, I respect your work. thank you.
Not being in the middle of the case, I am interested in what you base this section on: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop#Mathsci_admonished Could you provide some edit differences or point to were they can be found? several editors are asking for edit diffs. Ikip ( talk) 22:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You say: Once an agreement on the term is reached, Abd or the mentor shall advise the Committee of the terms by email. - does this imply that the terms of the metorship are private not public? I've asked this on the arb page, but of course you haven't replied, since my question got buried in all the cruft William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize you were are arbitor also. Best wishes. Ikip ( talk) 03:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It was great to catch up with you at the Melbourne WP Meetup. Thanks for listening to me about the status of WP:MOS, and other matters. I do hope Jennifer had a good time on her Australian trip. It seems that we made her feel welcome!
The music symbols that I strongly recommend to be added under the editbox are these, in this order in the Symbols category:
♭ ♯ ♮ [flat, sharp, natural]
The symbols for double flat and double sharp would be the next to add; but there are display issues, so it may be best to hold off on them. Templates are available in any case: see WP:MOSMUSIC. At least these three that I propose should be available under the editbox, because even a non-musician may need them in non-specialised articles. The order should be as I say for this reason: the most common incidental use is in naming works in various keys, such as "String Quartet in B♭ major"; and there are more works with "flat" in their names than "sharp", for good technical reasons. There are none with "natural" in their names: but often a note needs to be specified as natural, even in non-specialised prose.
I also propose adding the root sign to the Insert list, after − × ÷ (with which it naturally belongs): √ . The case for this is similar: a non-specialist editor working on a non-specialist article will often have need of it, without recourse to the very complex markup that the maths articles demand.
As for the order in the Latin list, perhaps you can see how difficult it is ergonomically. Suppose an editor wants the Turkish lower-case variant of "i", for incidental use (since it is common in names): ı. It's there, all right! But damn hard to find. I propose that the list be ordered so that anyone could quickly find anything: all the variants of "A" first; then alphabetically: ÁáÀàÂâÄäÃãǍǎĀāĂăÅåĄąÆæǢǣ ĆćĈĉÇçČčĊċ ĐđĎďḌḍ ÐðÞþ ... . (Note that the last four are grouped together both as similar to "d" and as typically representing the sound of "th" in "this" [Ðð] and "think" [Þþ].) I assure you: in my experience such an ordering is far easier to work with. Especially, if an entity is missing altogether, it is easy to ascertain its absence when the order is alphabetical.
Finally, note that a similar alphabetical ordering would be advisable for the Greek and Cyrillic listings, though the matter is not so urgent for them (fewer and more systematic variants, more understood by those needing them, and perhaps less commonly called upon anyway).
Thanks so much! If you have any queries about these suggestions (which I have trimmed to a minimum), or would like my assistance in sorting the Latin symbols into rational alphabetical order, please let me know at my talkpage.
Best wishes,
– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 07:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform the Arbitration Committee of a sanction proposal forbidding me from editing Arbitration Committee pages and talk pages. Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mythdon and Arbitration Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The parenthetical comment made that mentions me [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision#Second_block_of_Abd here] is inaccurate. I've mentioned this on the workshop, but you may not have seen it: I did not assess community consensus in my closure of that discussion. I closed it procedurally as Abd had stated that he would follow the ban given. I believed there was no possibility of further discussion and that closing it was as uncontroversial as delisting the RfA of a withdrawn candidate. Needless to say, I know now that this was not the case and that I should have either assessed exactly what the consensus was or have not closed that discussion. Regardless, what's done is done. I would ask you to please remove or refactor that parenthetical comment to accurately reflect my actions and intentions. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi bainer. I have recently decided to start editing Wikipedia, after using it for a lot of years. I've looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian law and it really seems to have stagnated a lot. I've started by attempting to categorise the existing articles a bit better, but I was wondering if you could run your more experienced eye over it, to make sure I'm not being too bold. I've indicated the changes I intend to make on the talk page. VeryRusty ( talk) 12:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm doing a study about Wikipedia (particularly about sysops) for my Masters in Communications and Media Studies at Monash Uni, and was wondering if you would be so kind as to take some time to talk to me. I'm mostly interested in what your day-to-day activities are and your relationship with other sysops and editors. It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes.
Please let me know if you're interested/willing. It would be immensely appreciated :) Cheers, -- In continente ( talk) 08:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators.
I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect.
The message is here.
Thank you. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A user who edits socionics named Tcaudilllg is threatening to go to arbcom to get his sole way with the socionics article. He seems to be avoiding posting credible sources and has resorted to telling white lies, such as saying that leigitimate portions and methods in the theory are 'fringe', in order to remove information he does not want in the article and get only what he wants in the article. He has also resorted to a number of personal attacks when he does not get his way with the article. He has also been makeing insistance reverts to the article that are unnecessary and for reasons that are insufficent for wikipedias standards, such as using making 'personal attacks' against another editor as a reason to remove articles in the headline. He has also been removing information that is sufficently sourced according to wikipedias standards.
Here is his userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tcaudilllg
I posted this here, because he has threatened to come here, so he can get his sole way with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.167.21 ( talk) 16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
How do you add Wikipedia pages to be searched? For example, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. thank you. Ikip ( talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Stephen,
Hope you're well.
I am new to the world of wiki. i just figured out how to make the infobox- its a crazy digital world we live in. Anyway, i have written an article about a law case study and am looking for any tips of getting it beyond start quality. Was wondering if you'd be interested in giving any suggestions or could lead me in the right direction? I have added the case study below. Also, i had a word limit of 2500 words, so its quite a brief summary. is it too late to change that from the title.
Any thoughts let me know,
Thanks in advance :)
Stevens V Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment (2005)
123jac123 ( talk) 06:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you active on the WP:EEML case or not? You seem to be the only Arbitrator who hasn't voted yet — are you responsible for the latest delay? Offliner ( talk) 11:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
On the issues discussed here? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You recently voted on a topic ban. I feel it important to state the following:
Facts
Questions
1)By pointing out harassing behaviour it has been assumed that there is, "a failure of either to work together or disengage”, and that "breathing room" was needed. Why must one have breathing room when one is being harassed? Why has no administrator ever intervened in any way against many false, blatant, and spiteful comments against me?
2)How can one disengage from harassment, especially when part of the harassment is the filing of sanction processes that include a number of bogus accusations?
3)If administrators discounted numerous allegations of wrongdoing during the two amendment requests, why did administrators make further accusations and propose a new topic ban?
Principles of care and justice
1)In a community, those in charge have a duty of care. No one should have to endure months of ongoing abuse.
2)A basic principle of any form of justice is that those making claims can be challenged, and that they must respond.
3)A basic principle of any form of justice is the separation of duties. One party can not start a process, make accusations, not communicate with the accused, and then vote for sanctions.
The sanction process is a "blunt instrument" but it shouldn't be an indifferent instrument and punitive instrument. I view the year long topic ban as unjust. How would I appeal it?-- scuro ( talk) 19:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Stephen, I see that the candidates for the ArbCom election have been settled, and I infer that you are choosing not to seek re-election, so I decided that this is a good time for me to say a very big thank you for this. I didn't thank you at the time, because I was seeking to avoid escalating the drama, but I want you to know that I will always be grateful. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
For being specific instead of general in your FoF in the EEML case (I refer in particular to the Canvassing findings). Could you consider a rewording of the Disruption findings to resemble those as well? Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for pointing out the specific diffs. I find it very helpful in understanding the situation. I do have however one clarifying question: would it be correct to say that many of the diffs listed where not disruptive due to their content, but where disruptive due to the way they originated (i.e. being improperly canvassed)? For example this edit introduced a better referenced version that has been stable for the past 4 months; or here I was restoring referenced information removed without explanation by a now-permbanned editor. Hence the content-improving quality of those edits is not disputed, but the problem arose since they involved improper solicitation (canvassing)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Reflecting on your remarks, I would like to ask for a minor clarification regarding interacting with editors via email. If an editor emails me (or uses a different private channel of communication) with a written paragraph for inclusion in an article, in accordance with our licensing, can I, after verification of the information as fine for inclusion with our content policies, include it (indicating in an edit summary it's author(s)), or should I request that editor to post that first on their talk page? What if that editor doesn't have a Wikipedia account, or resigned/reuses to edit anymore, either on principle of because they can't be bothered? Does it differ if an editor is banned? I thought I used to follow Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users as it was intended to, but now I am afraid I am not understanding it fully. PS. On a related note, what if an editor asks me privately to take a look at some part of Wikipedia? Should I request that they make this request publicly? What if they are making this request privately due to privacy issues? Once I had an academic colleague ask me to review his biography; he occasionally edits Wikipedia but does so anonymously and doesn't want any ties between his account and his biography. What would be a correct response? Do we have a forum where such questions can be asked, or a policy where they are discussed in detail? At this point I am inclined to refuse all such requests in the future, but I'd appreciate some guidance. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Got a question for you here. -- Martin ( talk) 23:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
"It's not what you do; it's the way you do it." - Mae West.
Cheers, Durova 371 02:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.
It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've asked another question there. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 03:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow the wiki drama closely, but I was surprised to find out today (from User:Anonimu's talk page) that User:Dc76 and User:Biruitorul have been involved in the EEML list. Algthough less nefarious explanations are possible, I was a little intrigued when Biruitorul recently showed up at a 3RR report I filed against Dc76 to defend his many reverts as justified under BLP. Pcap ping 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Stephen,
I replied to your comments, but I must have been logged off in the middle and my IP address is revealed. Could you oversight those IP edits please. -- Martin ( talk) 00:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for getting in direct contact, however I have serious concerns about this motion:
"Mattisse is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."
The wording is imprecise and is likely to lead to difficulty in implementing which will cause more conflict than it is intended to resolve.
Problems of wording:
This case has gone on for quite a time now, and it would be a shame for all concerned if in an attempt to close it quickly before the holiday season these ambiguities were not addressed.
Clearer, more workable options may be:
I have removed DYK and GA from the list, as these are not significant problem areas. Incidents there have been isolated. I feel some or all of these options, or a variation of them, would be acceptable to all concerned, and are worth considering. SilkTork * YES! 02:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tandberg Al-Kateb.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Zoo Fari 06:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This 3RR report Wikipedia:AN3#User:Pantherskin_reported_by_User:Martintg_.28Result:_.29 might be related to the current EEML arbcom case as there seems to be coordination between User:Martintg and User:Miacek and a mysterious newly registered third account User:Bobwikwiki. Pantherskin ( talk) 17:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
[21] Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I wanted you to know that I appreciated the effort you put into the Findings of Fact in the EEML case. I tend to think that strong FOF's are generally more useful than most available remedies. Half the problem with situation like that one is simply articulating the problem in a way that can stand up next to clever rebuttals. I found the extra effort you put into replacing the vague FOF's to be worthwhile. Thanks.-- BirgitteSB 19:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
|
I had hoped I spent enough time looking at other people's edit histories this year, but the (pr)odd disappearance of some software articles made take look at Miami's prodding history. I've added new evidence to the subpage. I'm notifying you because you're listed as the drafting arbitrator in that case—not sure if you're still watching that subpage page at this late stage. Sorry for the inconvenience, Pcap ping 15:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 ( talk) 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for including an explanation of the majority opinion about the enforcement measure. [22] My vote is peculiar for anyone not familiar with my rationale, so I thought to include it. It's a very good thing, for both the new arbs and observers, to be informed of why we vote the way we do (as individuals and a group). Thanks again for completing the picture. Vassyana ( talk) 20:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)