Revision as of 05:21, 30 July 2011 editSamuraiantiqueworld (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,886 edits →Opinion or advice needed: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:53, 8 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,942 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Causa sui/Archive17) (bot | ||
(808 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{talk header}} | ||
{{/header}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{User:Causa sui/Archive}} | |archiveheader = {{User:Causa sui/Archive}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 40K | |maxarchivesize = 40K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 17 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 8 | |minthreadsleft = 8 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old(1d) | |algo = old(1d) | ||
|archive = User talk:Causa sui/Archive |
|archive = User talk:Causa sui/Archive%(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=1|target=/Archive|dounreplied=yes|bot=MiszaBot III}} | |||
== ]: Voting now open! == | |||
== http://en.wikipedia.org/Chandler_School == | |||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Causa sui. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. | |||
If you are going to revert edits without even looking at the content you're reverting, you don't deserve to be calling yourself an editor. Every edit attempted today on the Chandler School page has been relevant and accurate. There are only so many ways to write factual information that only exists in the school's archive. On top of this, the section "Technology Curriculum" quotes nothing directly from the school, along with the fact that the references included show the information is accurate and not biased. The edits to the section regarding athletics made it more readable, including the removal of redundant "sports" such as inline skating, which is included under the umbrella of roller hockey, as well as the correction of "paddle pennis" to "paddle tennis." If there is something wrong with an individual component, you should address that, especially when previously mentioned issues have been corrected (with the inclusion of appropriate references). Reverting a correction to a word that looks conspicuously like "penis" smacks much more of vandalism than an attempt to prevent vandalism. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
== Articles for deletion/Jack Mealey == | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. | |||
Hi Causa sui. I am inquiring regarding your decision to close ] as "Keep". As your closing did not provide a rationale of how the participants' arguments were weighted, I am uncertain why the consensus was considered keep when ] and myself did not see evidence of GNG being met. Moreover, a legitimate concern was raised that GNG expects that multiple sources of significant—not routine—coverage exists, and the discussion to-date only unveiled one such source as a candidate. While there were more !votes to keep, I believe that the arguments were either not based on policy (i.e. there is no cited policy or guideline that a minor league president, manager, or All-Star is inherently notable) or was based on unsubstantiated claim that GNG was met when multiple sources have not been cited as requested in the discussion. Can you discuss your decision to "Keep"? Thanks. —] (]) 21:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
:Sure. Do you want to discuss it here, or do you think I should add my rationale to the AFD? I ask because the AFD is more "official" but doesn't offer you a clear channel for discourse. ] (]) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/4&oldid=750541749 --> | |||
:: If dont mind discussing here first, and updating AfD later if needed. —] (]) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::All right. Here we go. | |||
:::*The first thing I considered is the previous AFD. You're right that prior discussions are not binding; but at the same time, they are not irrelevant. That a previous AFD closed as keep, and the only changes in the circumstances since then would only increase the notability of the subject, tilts the scales a bit. | |||
:::*Second, the rationales of the keep !voters could be condensed into the opinion that his work as league president, manager, and minor-league umpire established the notability of the subject. You objected that there is nothing in the notability policy that explicitly includes such a criterion. Note that Misplaced Pages ] and the spirit of the rule carries over its literal wording. Crucially, several editors disagreed with you, concluding that the coverage was not routine and did meet the GNG and BASEBALL/N. While you might think their interpretation of policy was off-base, I was disinclined to make a ] about that while closing. Also, while some keep !voters did not specifically cite any links to policy, they ''did'' answer the notability question in the affirmative. | |||
:::*Third, the rationale of the delete !voters cemented my perception that there were no unaddressed objections. | |||
:::You're right that AFD is not a vote and we are not a democracy. But where it comes down to a "yes it is" vs "no it isn't" and both sides seem to think policy is on their side, a closing admin in my position will have to contort himself quite a bit to come down on the short side of the debate, especially considering the previous AFD. I hope that helps. Regards, ] (]) 22:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks for the insight. I do appreciate all the factors that must be consider while closing. Here are my responses to your above points: | |||
::::*Previous AfD: Im OK if this was a minor and not a major factor, as you seemed to indicate when saying it "tilts the scales a bit." The previous AfD had only 2 !votes for keep after one relisting: | |||
:::::# A procedural vote saying the nominator was not decisive enough (but didnt cite any merits of the article to keep) | |||
:::::# A !vote to keep based on the person's accomplishments (no guidelines or policies cited, I guess WP:IGNORE was the assumption?) | |||
::::*Notability: There is not much to argue if WP:IGNORE is the reasoning. However, I would expect this in cases where ] was occurring or the spirit of WP was being violated or was unclear. ] was very clear in saying "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." If you considered this a new consensus that was forming, it would be helpful if this was included in the AfD's closing rationale that it was contrary to existing guideline. For the record on the 5 !votes to keep, | |||
:::::# 4 !votes were essentially of the same as last time variety of "he was league president and managerial career and minor league all-star appearances" | |||
:::::# Only 2 of the 5 !votes mentioned GNG, but in a ]: DJSasso and Agent Vodello. In facr, Agent Vodello said the subject "did enough beyond just being a player" to satisfy GNG, but GNG has nothing to do with a person's accomplishments but rather depends on what type of significant coverage reliable, independent sources are giving. Again, you would recommend I WP:IGNORE. | |||
:::: I can only see a clear consensus to keep if WP:IGNORE was the main consideration. If so, it would be helpful to include in the AfD for other AfDs or WP:NSPORT discussions to reference. Otherwise, I dont see a clear consensus to keep yet. Thanks—] (]) 02:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::: I think your disagreement is clearly in good faith. If you disagree with my close, you are sincerely welcome to bring it up on ]. ] (]) 04:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Thanks for your time and the suggestion. —] (]) 21:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder == | |||
== Chandler School == | |||
]This is a reminder that established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.{{pb}}Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the ].{{pb}}Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — ] 00:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Causa sui, | |||
== Deleted page == | |||
As per the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ukexpat#Chandler_School, the content dispute has been resolved. Please unlock the ] page for normal editing. Thank you. ] (]) 02:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 66.214.44.226 | |||
Dear Causa sui, the page "Governmental Learning Spiral" was deleted after almost 10 years yesterday. The person who deleted it is not responding to my messages. Can you help? Can you copy the page to my user page. Thanks for your help and with best regards, Raoul Blindenbacher ] (]) 10:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Please?] (]) 05:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)66.214.44.226 | |||
== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == | |||
::I'll take a look at it soon. I have to say that I'm less than impressed with the consensus building efforts of the IPs in that dispute, who seem to have "won" by badgering {{user|ukexpat}} and attacking his character until he gave up and walked away in disgust. ] (]) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
:::While that is understandable with respect to tone, you might notice that {{user|ukexpat}} actually caused much of the problem by continuously reverting to a much lower quality page vaguely citing "copyvio" without any specific references, as well as continuously misusing the "notability" requirement. If you're trying to build out content on a page, giving someone more than two minutes kind of helps a bit. The anonymous school user did attempt to address many of ukexpat's issues with the page although they were marked simple reversions, but again, he simply changed all of it back to almost nothing more than a simple list of athletic activities the school provides. This is not behavior that helps improve pages, and these specific problems were definitely pointed out to him, with no response beyond deciding he just didn't "give a shit" any more. ] (]) 20:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div> | |||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
== ] == | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
Hello, | |||
</div> | |||
Do you have any evidence that the user trying to blank this article is actually the subject of the article? Isn't OTRS the proper and well-established procedure for such matters? ] ] 05:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
:Other than her claims to be, no I don't. ] (]) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 --> | |||
::It seems that two users are claiming to be her and/or represent her. Perhaps you, as an administrator, might consider referring those users to ], and withdraw your AfD nom until we hear from OTRS. Just a suggestion. ] ] 17:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I'll consider referring them to OTRS, though one need not be an administrator to do that. I don't intend to withdraw the AFD, though. ] (]) 17:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Invitation to participate in a research == | |||
== ] == | |||
Hello, | |||
remember Noq tried to delete Connswater, and when you gave me permission he did it again, well now he has nominated another one of my articles for deletion and i think im being victimised. Earlier today he nominated the ] for speedy deletion that was declined, but now he has nominated it for deletion again and i was wondering if anything could be done ] (]) 16:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''. | |||
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. | |||
== Deletion review for ] == | |||
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] . | |||
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> —] (]) 21:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
== Thanks == | |||
Kind Regards, | |||
Thanks for protecting ], causa. However, as ** I ** was the one requesting protection, the template seemed a bit much. I have initiated discussion on the talk page. I would recommend that you also observe ], where similar issues may be cranking up. So far no revert warring, though. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:While it's good that you requested protection to end the edit war, you also participated in it. Edit warring is never acceptable regardless of whatever other steps you have taken. Follow ] from square one. Regards, ] (]) 23:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Yeah, point accepted, but I did ask the other user to take the issue to talk in the edit summaries (I think a couple of times) and did initiate the discussion at talk when I also requested page protection. Do watchlist the talk page if you don't mind. Oh, and add ] to the list because that one's starting there, too. The other use clearly has a POV that is being pushed across multiple articles (judging by the user's talk page) and I have relatively little patience with that ilk. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
== ] == | |||
<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
It seems odd to jump in and do a major revert and then protect of an article that has had exactly one reverted edit in over a week. What's up with that? ] (]) 01:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 --> | |||
:Slow-moving revert war over images requested on ]. ] (]) 01:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Still, seems odd. And why revert before locking? Not that it matters much in this case. ] (]) 02:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::See ]: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Hope that helps. ] (]) 03:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::I wouldn't have made that revert, personally, if I were the admin doing that, but, causa sui knows more about this dispute than I do and I'm respecting his/her judgement on this. BTW, I'm the one who made the request at RFPP.] ] 03:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::Actually I don't know much about it, which is why I reverted to the last protected revision (effectively deferring to MuZemike). If either of you have an argument for another revision, have at it. ] (]) 03:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:The article was stable at a consensus version for over a week until the guy came along and inserted the picture of his cat again. That's all. No reason to roll back to an old version. No reason to protect, either, since the guy took me up on my invitation to take it to the talk page. ] (]) 04:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research == | |||
:Dick has it exactly right. After the last similar edit war, this issue was carefully discussed—far more so than is normal for Misplaced Pages, and a few changes were made reflecting that consensus. Jamesington’s edit clearly ignored that consensus, which was more than simply a matter of which images to use—some images were moved around and captions changed to better illustrate points discussed in the article. It’s a shame to have that undone because of one editor who has contributed absolutely nothing to the article. ] (]) 08:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Very well, I've reverted to ] ;) ] (]) 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::That seems more appropriate. A few more days of protection won't bother anyone. ] (]) 21:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hello, | |||
== YGM == | |||
By the way... | |||
<br> | |||
{{ygm}} | |||
] ] 03:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Flylanguage == | |||
Hi, I noticed you closed several of the AfD's created by ]. While they were bad faith nominations, some of the discussions were gaining a strong consensus to delete. Perhaps they should be reopened/renominated/speedied? Cheers, —'']'' 11:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:It's a fair point. Point them out and I could reopen them with you as the nominator. ] (]) 15:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== RPP full protection template == | |||
Hey there! Just in case you didn't realise, if you use {{tlx|rfpp|p|3 days}} rather than {{tlx|rfpp|f|3 days}}, the template will stop showing the redundant ''3 days'' as in . Took me a while to work that one out, don't know why it abbreviates down to p rather than f, but there we go! Thanks for your help at RPP, great to have another RPPing admin around :) ]] 11:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Yeah I saw that, and was mystified by it too. Thanks for doing the legwork. Any way the template can be fixed? ] (]) 16:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Well, I'm not sure it's technically broken. I think the intention in using the 'f' is to allow comments within the template; I think that was the preferred style in previous years more than it is now. As to fixing it, no idea, templates are a bit beyond me. I guess have a look on that template's discussion page, see if anyone's around? ]] 18:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::No worries, you already went above and beyond. I'll just use {{tlx|RFPP|p}} from now on. Thanks! ] (]) 19:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Harold E. Glass == | |||
Hello, I was wondering why the Harold E. Glass was deleted? I was in the process of trying to fix it up to clear all those comments out. | |||
Thanks, | |||
] (]) 15:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC) --> —] | |||
:Hi, I deleted the article in accordance with the discussion at ]. You might want to take a look at ] for an explanation of the deletion process. If you think you can make an article that is consistent with the requirements for inclusion, you can draft it at ] where experienced editors will help you get the article into acceptable condition before it is reinstated. Regards, ] (]) 19:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Would you mind closing ], nominated by the same blocked user as the other two you closed? Thanks. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">"]]</span>''' 17:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:A bit before you, another user is asking me to reopen the debates where there was forming consensus to delete. I'm thinking he's probably right, per ]. What do you think? ] (]) 17:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I did see that there was a consensus forming, but it doesn't feel right that an indef-blocked user nominated them... kind of like ] maybe...? I think a simple renomination by a user in better standing would be best. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">"]]</span>''' 17:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Another way of looking at it is that the user is now community banned due to the uncontroversial indefblock. That was pretty much the rationale in my mind when I closed the ongoing AFDs. It's a funny ]. Maybe I should post the story on ] to get some opinions. ] (]) 17:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
I appreciate that you protected this page. However, only 1 minute before you did the offending editor did undid the page that the four other edits reach a consensus on. Would it be possible and appropriate to ask you to undo the last change and return the page to and then protect the page. | |||
I have no idea if this request is even appropriate, so please tell me. If I am doing something wrong I want to now so I can never do it again.20:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC) {{unsigned|ARTEST4ECHO}} | |||
:See ] and ]. Protection is not an endorsement of the current page revision. If another administrator who knows more about the dispute feels that there is a compelling reason to select another revision, that would be up to his or her prerogative to revert through protection. Regards, ] (]) 20:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Sorry I will not make a request like this again.--] (]/]) 20:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::As someone who don't request page protection often, I honestly didn't know how taboo this kind of request was and it came back to bit me almost immediately. I have therefore made a minor request to adjust the page to make it clearer to smucks like me. I would love to have your input ]--] (]/]) 23:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Thanks == | |||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}} | |||
|rowspan="2" | | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''Civility Award''' | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For reinforcing the ] at ] —] (]) 20:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
== Re: Your comment on IP complaint at incident == | |||
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ]. | |||
Technically that would be him: spectare Causa Sui in falsificatum speculum. lol. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Take the survey ''''''. | |||
== Lewontin's fallacy == | |||
{{archive top}} | |||
You recently closed ] on ]. ], in conjunction with ] have now moved the article to '''Lewontin's Argument''', which completely changes the subject of the article, as it is meant to be about an academic paper that is a response to Lewontin's Argument and not Lewontin's argument itself. That's a different article that is yet to be written. When I pointed this out, the two of them in ] started saying that the subject of the academic paper is non-notable, which is against the consensus in the AfD, and that the title of the paper is not neutral, even though the title is what it is. My proposal is to move the title to ], which is the full title of the paper, as that should minimize the confusion or any POVness about calling it just a fallacy. However, that title has already been made a redirect and requires an administrator to delete it in order for it to be moved. Can you do this? <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 00:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Kind Regards, | |||
:And now they are trying, in ] to make the subject of the article be about Lewontin's paper, which is an entirely different subject and, as discussed at the AfD, should be in a different article. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
::Can I point out that 'they' have done no such thing. My only edit to the article since I proposed it for AfD on the 11th of July was my addition of the <nowiki>{{POV-title}}</nowiki> template - and note that this issue was debated even before the AfD, and that User:Miradre (a major contributor, and vocal supporter of the article) stated that he would "quickly change the title" - this was in March, and nobody seems to have objected. ] (]) 02:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
*I don't intend enforce the AFD closure or act in future content disputes related to the article. If another user feels that some content changes are inappropriately in contradiction to the AFD discussion, they are welcome to enforce them as they see fit, and through the usual channels. Regards, ] (]) 02:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 --> | |||
{{archive bottom}} | |||
== |
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | ||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
I want to ask you about how to handle certain situations which I have come across lately and from the looks of it I might be encountering in the future. I will use the ] article as an example. while reading the article I noticed that most of the information in the article was about European plate armour which I can understand as that is the most published type of armour. Since I have an interest in Japanese and samurai warfare I decided to add some pertinent and referenced information about the Japanese use of plate armour, this is a well know and documented fact that can easily be checked on through the references I provided in the text I introduced to the article. As soon as I added my text on the Japanese use of plate armour to the article I met with immediate resistance from one editor who gave me the impression that he considered the article to be only about European plate armour. | |||
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
"did you notice how there is no European armour article? More specifically, no European armour of the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance? The reason for this is that this article is located at Plate armour" | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
I seem to be seeing the same response to other articles that I have added information about the Japanese version of the subject of the article as in ] and possibly ]. | |||
</div> | |||
When I look at the title of these articles they do not appear to be only open to information on a certain cultures objects, rather I see the title being about a broad range of information open to whoever has relevant and informed information on the subject. Now if the title of the articles were for example ] or ] I could understand someones insisting that the majority of the information be based on European centered information, but in the cases I have mentioned and a few others I will probably be running into in the near future I want to have some sort of idea what is and what is not an appropriate response to editors who feel that "THEIR" article is being violated by a foreign culture. | |||
</div> | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
== Edit request == | |||
I was under the impression that if someone added referenced text that was within the scope of the article it was not appropriate for an editor to delete the information as this would be considered to be vandalism and that such a deletion could be reverted.....Am I incorrect in believing this? And if so what is the best method to deal with this situation. I did not think that I would be required or forced to seek arbitration etc every time I want to edit an article that another editor believes belongs only to the particular culture they are interested in even though the title of the article is not based on any particular culture. | |||
Hello, I'm clearing up a few specific ] here on Misplaced Pages, and have come across your ] page. I wondered if you'd be willing to make adjustments to ] to clear the unclosed span error and to replace the use of obsolete center tags? You may open up the edited version and copy that version's entire text and copy it over to your page for your convenience. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks! ] (]) 07:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
What would be the steps that you recommend that I should take in the future based on your experience with Misplaced Pages if I have a similar problem in the future? I have read the guides on editing and vandalism that I could find but I did not see an example that matched this situation so any advice or help you can provide in finding the best method for dealing these types of problems would be appreciated.] (]) 05:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 13:53, 8 December 2024
This is Causa sui's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 1 day |
|
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Causa sui. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.
Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder
This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted page
Dear Causa sui, the page "Governmental Learning Spiral" was deleted after almost 10 years yesterday. The person who deleted it is not responding to my messages. Can you help? Can you copy the page to my user page. Thanks for your help and with best regards, Raoul Blindenbacher Raoul Blindenbacher (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research
Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Take the survey here.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Edit request
Hello, I'm clearing up a few specific syntax errors here on Misplaced Pages, and have come across your User:Causa sui/Deleted page. I wondered if you'd be willing to make these adjustments to User:Causa sui/Deleted to clear the unclosed span error and to replace the use of obsolete center tags? You may open up the edited version and copy that version's entire text and copy it over to your page for your convenience. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks! Zinnober9 (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)