| Revision as of 22:53, 24 February 2019 editSashiRolls (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,634 edits →RE AE typewriter: r to Fitzcarmalan← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:20, 8 December 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,142,137 edits →Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (835 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] For those who like to rummage, the been is ]. | |||
| ==Email== | |||
| Hi SashiRolls. Thanks for the kind words in your email. I wish you every success in your renewed career on Misplaced Pages. A word of advice—I know it's sometimes hard, but try to avoid meta-issues for at least a year and stick to article space and uncontroversial subjects. There's lots of fascinating subjects out there ]. Best wishes, ] (]) 09:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == ] updates == | |||
| :{{Ping|Voceditenore}} I'm confused. I did not email you. (there are only two contributors I've emailed since I've been back: one was Drmies and the other wasn't you). Please help clear up this mystery... by sending me an email through en.WP. — 🍣 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 09:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| You are receiving this message because you are on ] for ]. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is {{tqq|The interaction of named parties in the ] topic area and examination of the ] process that led to ] ] to ]}}. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made: | |||
| ::Many apologies, SashiRolls! I've reread the email. The person who sent it to me has a ''very'' similar name, and concerned the Arbitration request where we have both participated, but I now realize that he/she is clearly not you. Once again, I'm very sorry for the confusion. Best wishes, ] (]) 10:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I ''could'' say kind words about your sandbox and the many fascinating subjects out there if you'd like. I think I'll file this in the been fairly quickly, but I did want to be sure that no bad crawlers have hijacked my valid-alt {{Ping|Rosashills}} account. Even if the person said nice things, I would still want to be sure it wasn't through any account I operated as my !own, when it had been ''possessed by Others''. No meta issues, for another whole year? ... ;o ... — 🍣 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 11:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is a courtesy notice to my alter-self to point out that my ping(ouin)ing above was a complete fail. I also appear not to have been hacked. — 🍆 ] <sup><small>] · ]</small> </sup> 13:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| First, '''the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days''', until '''23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)'''. Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on ], providing a reason with ] as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective. | |||
| == thanks and welcome back == | |||
| Second, the ] '''has been extended by a week''', and will now close at '''23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)'''. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi SashiRolls, thank you for your improvement to ], I had definitely missed that entry. And welcome back to Misplaced Pages! ] (]) 10:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:HouseBlaster@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260342644 --> | |||
| :Thank you. (I noticed you fixed that quick addition up nicely.) See you around. — 🍣 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 23:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | You've put an amazing amount of brave effort into the ], an event which has attracted controversy - your patience and humor is also a relief. You need to be recognized for it! <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;"><small>]]</small></span> 22:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ] au Tréport]] | |||
| :blush: ^^ | |||
| "Mais Harry à Paris n'a pas eu de chance<br> | |||
| On le stoppe sur le périph' avec sa diligence<br> | |||
| Puis on le place à ] pour que Fresnes le freine <br> | |||
| Victime des directives de ce que l'on appelle <br> | |||
| Le nouveau western..." | |||
| — ] (Nouveau Western) | |||
| :— 🍣 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 23:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == A kitten for you! == | |||
| ] | |||
| heyy Wikicat get your present! | |||
| ] (]) 10:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Uh-oh. What've I done now? — 🍣 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 23:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == "Digitization of administration" == | |||
| Bonjour! :-) Thank you for all your recent work at ]. The article would be a mess without your careful eye and pen. I have a question about of "and the related digitization of administrations" to the infobox after "Austerity measures." I do not understand what "the related digitization of administrations" refers to. The cited source is written in French and quel dommage, mon cerveau est trop petit et ma langue est trop maladroite pour parler français. What does "digitization of administration" refer to? Is it about "outsourcing" of work from people to robots (mechanization of labor)? Thank you in advance for explaining it! ] (]) 03:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :In the article, the author talks about how the primary contact with the tax service (in particular) is no longer face-to-face with a tax agent but by email in rural areas (35,000 tax agent positions eliminated in the last 12 years). He says that those not adept at "tax speak" are much less likely to be able to successfully appeal an onerous tax burden (providing data showing that the "classes supérieures" are more successful). In general this is related to the gilets jaunes' complaints about reduction of services in the countryside (post office, train service, tax offices, etc.) It's in the section "Un Ėtat lointain, au service des puissants". Your French looks fine: if you want to see the whole article, the CGT posted a pale photocopy of it. I'm not particularly wedded to that particular infobox line, I just wanted to add something sourced for austerity. Perhaps improved rural government services would be a better way of putting it, since that's in the 42 directives and pretty widely attested... | |||
| :I asked for semi-protection on the page yesterday. Maybe that will help, I don't know. I haven't looked at the entry today. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. — 🍣 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 10:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, but that's not my French, that's Google's. Which is pretty good, but the accent still needs work (still a bit monotonic). Thanks also for the explanation. I made an edit to the infobox changing it to "improved government services for rural areas," and moving that from causes to goals (although I suppose "poor government services in rural areas" could be a goal?). Because I don't speak French, I don't want to Google translate an entire article and then make edits based on that translation...otherwise I'd end up calling them the jaundiced-vest movement. ] (]) 15:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == the snoog cries wolf== | |||
| snoog added two diffs here and a lot of nonsense. I've pared it down to the relevant info: | |||
| . | |||
| Snoog, if you boast about how stupid other people are on your userpage, expect blowback if you are stealing a journalist's writing without attribution, as in the first diff. You asked RSN people in a discussion I participated in to come to the page on media bias, where I have, as you know, improved the page. why does that annoy you so? ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 02:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : "''stealing a journalist's writing without attribution''". That's a blatant lie. I hope you get a thrill from this. It sure is annoying and creepy for me. ] (]) 02:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please indicate where the author you quote (Harry McGrath) or his article is linked ]. While often our historical disagreements have been about your POV editing, another even more frequent problem is your lack of care in contributing. (I actually didn't know for sure you were the one who had added it until you cried wolf here, but since you made a stink about it... this is indeed looking like yet another copyvio, unless you were, as I assume, just being slipshod.) The copyrighted text is 30 December 2018, you are citing an article from 1 March 2018 as its source. Here is the source you wanted: ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 02:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The text clearly attributes the quote to a review in the Herald, even if there was a mix-up in links. ] (]) 02:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't understand why you never take responsibility for your errors, Snoog. Sure, if you want, you didn't make a mistake yourself, there was just a mix-up in the links. Are you saying you should check the links people in your email ring send you more carefully lest you be blamed for copyvio? I have trouble understanding how you made this specific mistake, but since I don't have access to the 1 March 2018 article by Elizabeth Teague which you are (still) citing as a review/reaction to a book that was published in November 2018, I'll let you fix your "mix-up" yourself. | |||
| :::::In the same vein, I am amazed that you were able to fight on the Media Bias/Fact Check article for nearly a month without bothering to correct the misspelling of the site owner's name... attention to detail is important, Snoog. More important than to your user page to boast about how you irritated yet another person with your sloppy editing. | |||
| ::::Any chance that you will reflect on the toxicity of your behavior and set a resolution for next year to 1) be more careful & 2) to quit accusing others of misbehavior until you've got your own affairs in order? This would make for a more pleasant 2019. I hope you'll give it a try. Sincerely, ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 10:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Also, with regard to the original allegations: I note that you had never edited on Christmas Day. I forgot to write a furious message on your talk page about how you must have been stalking my edits. I *did* notice that with that edit you deleted reference to an essay from a well-known figure because he had it published in ''Forbes''. Strange how that same publication was fine when you wanted to back in 2016. ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 03:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==Misclick== | |||
| ] Thank you for ]. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to ], as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with ], a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the ] of clear-cut ] and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-minor --> ] (]) 22:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I misclicked. My apologies. I did not mean to identify your edit as "vandalism". It was disruptive, however. And the consistent disruption leads to misclicks. Out of curiousity could you provide a link to a major edit I marked as minor below? Thanks. ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 23:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::There was nothing disruptive about my edit, SashiRolls. You made an addition that was good faith but inappropriate, because it consisted of ] material. It was reasonable of me to remove it, because there was a very clear justification for doing so. You should not have restored the material. ] (]) 23:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Your third opinion request == | |||
| Hello, SashiRolls. I suggest that you rewrite your third opinion request. Third opinion requests need to begin with a link to the section of the article's talk page where the dispute is being held. Your request does not follow that format, which may cause it to be declined. Also, it is too long. Best regards. ] (]) 04:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for January 29== | |||
| An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). | |||
| (].) --] (]) 09:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I used to get these all the time until I turned on the "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" feature at Preferences/Gadgets. Now the bots leave me alone! '''<sup>]</sup><sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">]</sub>''' 15:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's a good tip, thanks! :) ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 22:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==] has been nominated for discussion== | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''', which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like a good proposal. Thanks for the notification, {{reply to||JFG}}. ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 18:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == ITN recognition for ] == | |||
| {{ivmbox | |||
| |1=On 24 February 2019, ''''']''''' was updated with an item that involved the article ''''']''''', which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the ]. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 20:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| |2=Ambox current red.svg | |||
| |imagesize=50px | |||
| }} | |||
| == RE AE typewriter == | |||
| Thanks for letting me know. What made you think you could be "banned" for this though? ] (]) 22:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Still waiting to see if T. Canens is going to to grant GMG/TJW 's wish to have me sanctioned for questioning Cirt while he was sockpuppeting. I'm also not sure if the original sentence is meant to be "broadly construed" or if it just means I absolutely can't post something nice about Atsme in her appeal at AE, for example. The weirdest thing was that it was just after posting this request to Mr. Canens that I read that the Dan the Plumber guy who had been accusing me of being some sort of Putin/Assad drone was an LTA sock. I doubt T. Canens will sanction me for reverting my own edit telling you about your typo, but with all the protected sockpuppets and other special cabalistas, I guess you never know. :) ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 22:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:20, 8 December 2024
For those who like to rummage, the been is here.
Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates
You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA
. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)