Revision as of 19:44, 12 July 2012 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,242 edits →Your editing is being discussed: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:41, 12 July 2012 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,242 edits →Your editing is being discussed: Notified of ARBPIANext edit → | ||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
#I object to what people are saying about my edits, and here's why my edits were reasonable. | #I object to what people are saying about my edits, and here's why my edits were reasonable. | ||
If you want to respond, you can leave your answer on my talk page. If you make no answer, it seems probable that you will be officially notified. Thanks, ] (]) 19:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | If you want to respond, you can leave your answer on my talk page. If you make no answer, it seems probable that you will be officially notified. Thanks, ] (]) 19:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
{{Ivmbox | |||
| image = yes | |||
| The ] has permitted ] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at ]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the ]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], satisfy any ], or follow any ]. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "]" section of the decision page. | |||
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at ], with the appropriate sections of ], and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} --> | |||
| valign = center | |||
| ] | |||
}} Per that you are already aware of the ARBPIA sanctions. A discussion about this happened at ]. Thank you, ] (]) 23:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:41, 12 July 2012
LGBT unfriendly ranking
Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages, and particularly for citing your source in the articles Brigham Young University, Grove City College, and Wheaton College (Illinois). Unfortunately, the one source you added did it itself appear to have sufficient information to determine if the "LGBT unfriendly" list meets the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources guideline. The Princeton Review is somewhat well-known, but the source gives no indication of what this ranking actually means: not only is there no information of TPR's methodology, but does not even list criteria or any description of why a school was listed or anything else LBGT-related. Without this information, it gives the appearance to undue weight being given to a ranking with no known foundation. This particlar ranking list seems particularly controversial, compared to more general college rankings, because it claims colleges to be "unfriendly" to a group of people who it may be highly controversial, or even unlawful in some circumstances, to be explicitly "unfriendly" to. Since it's making a claim about a controversial issue, it needs specific verifiable claims from multiple reliable sources, or at least verifiable, reliable sources to establish how TPR, if it normally respected, arrived at such a conclusion. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here. Thanks again for your help. --Closeapple (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Kudos for telling me that you reverted my edits and on taking the time to explain, but, none of what you stated is true.
- "Unfortunately, the one source you added did it itself appear to have sufficient information to determine if the "LGBT unfriendly" list meets the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources guideline." -Bullshit
- "The Princeton Review is somewhat well-known, but the source gives no indication of what this ranking actually means: not only is there no information of TPR's methodology, but does not even list criteria or any description of why a school was listed or anything else LBGT-related. Without this information, it gives the appearance to undue weight being given to a ranking with no known foundation. This particlar ranking list seems particularly controversial, compared to more general college rankings, because it claims colleges to be "unfriendly" to a group of people who it may be highly controversial, or even unlawful in some circumstances, to be explicitly "unfriendly" to. Since it's making a claim about a controversial issue," -meaningless ramblings
- "but the source gives no indication of what this ranking actually means:" -Verifiability not truth
- "it needs specific verifiable claims from multiple reliable sources" -Bullshit, you want multiple sources to back up that the PR stated X when I already gave the PRIMARY source?
- Sorry, I'm no fool, I reinstated two of my edits, the third was already re-added by an admin. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for all this
Sorry for the somewhat ugly tone of the discussion, UU- not a great example IMO of a civil and productive discussion at Misplaced Pages. We try... Staecker (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I knew I should have taken more time to think of a name, Waddling Through Fire would have been better, I hope you get it. There were many indications that a conversation with BB would not go well, I'm sure there are many editors, like yourself, that I could have a productive dialogue with, even if we were in disagreement. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm trying to reboot the discussion at Talk:Brigham Young University#Princeton Review LGBT ranking, hopefully without the personal opinions and bickering. Staecker (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
1RR
I appreciate your self-revert at UNRWA. Please remember to do the same at Mahmoud Abbas' page, and refrain from violating 1RR in the future. If you feel there is any issue, talk pages exist for a reason. Thanks for understanding. --Activism1234 18:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Your editing is being discussed
Hello Unique Ubiquitous. Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Request for issuance of discretionary sanctions. It has been proposed that you be notified about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. I can imagine two ways you might respond:
- I already know about the restrictions, you don't have to notify me, or
- I object to what people are saying about my edits, and here's why my edits were reasonable.
If you want to respond, you can leave your answer on my talk page. If you make no answer, it seems probable that you will be officially notified. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
File:YesThe Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
Per your statement that you are already aware of the ARBPIA sanctions. A discussion about this happened at User talk:EdJohnston#Request for issuance of discretionary sanctions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)