Revision as of 18:53, 26 July 2007

Add new comments at bottom of the page, unless it's something about an RfAr request or case. In that case, click here.

Archive info:
/Archive1 archives up to Jun 30, 2005
/Archive2 archives up to Jul 23, 2006
/Archive3 archives up to Feb 25, 2007
/Archive4 archives March 2007
/Archive5 archives April/May 2007

RfAr related:

March 2007
April/May 2007

WP:RfAr related

Clerkship

I'd like to submit your name to ArbCom for appointment as an official clerk. Are you interested? Thatcher131 04:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however, please be advised that I will be working on my resume for RfA and may decrease time at AC/CN for more mainspace edits. - Penwhale | 04:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there is a clerks mailing list, and clerks have write-access to the closed committee mailing list (bypassing the moderation queue) so make sure I have your current e-mail address. Thatcher131 15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Use the E-mail this user, or come talk to me on IRC. I'm on right now. - Penwhale | 16:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning "Azari" versus "Azeri"

Dear Penwhale, thank you for suggesting arbitration. Since I have spent too much time on the issue (too much to be good for my work, which is not editing Misplaced Pages or arguing with its various contributors, and too much to be good for my family life), I propose to take as evidence, or supporting material for my case, the correspondence that I have had with User:Parishan on the subject matter. Both his writings and mine are to be found on User talk:Parishan. For the reasons indicated, I do not wish to be involved in any further direct interactions (unless they are absolutely necessary). One last thing, from the links that you have just left on User talk:Parishan, I notice that they all refer to "Armenia-Azerbaijan". My arguments have no bearing on either Armenia or the Republic of Azerbaijan; rather, I am arguing from the stand-point of someone who considers the matters related to the Iranian province of Azarbaijan. If the Azarbaijanis of the Republic of Azerbaijan wish to refer to their language as "Azeri", that is their best right and I have nothing against that. My point is that in Iran "Azeri" refers to nothing that I can recognise as an existing langauge, in contrast to "Azari". Yours sincerely, --BF 19:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Penwhale, thank you for your message. Further, in contrast to my above statement, I have now made my case, the text of which you may wish to read. In such case, please see . With kind regards, --BF 04:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

arbcom - armenia-azerbaijan

I have a question. I have some issues regarding content dispute within current Arbcom case 'Armenia-Azerbaijan 2". Where should I list my request for arbitration of content dispute? On Evidence page? Workshop? It seems that Evidence page is focused on behaviour of editors. But I believe much was caused by dispute over content and would like to get Arbcom judgement on several disputed articles which brought to reopening of the Arbcom case.--Dacy69 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For example user:AlexanderPar removed refrences to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch on a number of pages, or on page Ethnic minorities in Iran he removed reference to one scholar published in Christian Sceince Monitor, arguing that he is working for Radio Free Europe (see discussion: . From my previous experience, it is almost impossible to reach consensus with that user. He usually removes texts and references without any discussion. I also would like to see opinion of editors about this edit which became later a subject of heated dispute . I filed RfC but some editors did not agree with its proposal. How we can have Arbcom judgement about the use of abovementioned references and relevant edits?--Dacy69 19:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have already done. I just would like to know is it any way to get judgement about the use of sources like Amnesty International, HRW, etc. --Dacy69 19:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have a question with regard to the same arbcom case. Is there a space limitation and has anyone exceed it yet? Thanks. --Grandmaster 16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically 100 diffs is the maximum (I can't see the words being under 1000). Then again, arbitrators haven't really enforced the limits.... I'll have to ask on this one. - Penwhale | 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

An affirmative vote is "yea," not "yay." :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sue me :P XD - Penwhale | 05:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tajik/E104421 Arbcom result

Hi, I think there's been a technical misunderstanding about the arbcom ban in this case; you might want to comment on the discussion here. Thank you, Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

From the discussion on the proposed decision page, I think Fut.Perf. is right about this. Newyorkbrad 21:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Re NYScholar case

I'm not sure if this was an error, but on the just completed NYScholar case, you listed Finding of Fact point 5 as "passed 6-0" yet on the "proposed decision" page that point appears to have failed by 5-1 Notmyrealname 17:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Notmyrealname 18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: VartanM

Hi, I got a question about the Armenia Azerbaijan 2 RfA. About 2 months ago I slightly modified my username from Vartanm to VartanM, all of my information except the block log was forwarded to my "new" username. The problem with the block log seems to be a bug. Now Grandmaster insists including Vartanm as a former name in the list of involved parties. Vartanm and VartanM being the same name I don't see the point of having it there as a former name. Since the only link thats missing in VartanM is the block log, can I add the link from Vartanm's block log next to my new name? --VartanM 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a normal procedure when user's former user name is added next to the current one. If you check the list, you'll see that you are not the only one. When you officially change your username, your block log does not transfer to the new name, so your old name links are important info the arbitrators should be aware of. It contains your block log and other information. So I don't think you should be removing it. I would appreciate if Penwhale could comment on this issue. --Grandmaster 04:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Like Grandmaster said, your block log isn't transfered. I agree with Grandmaster here that you should let it stand-- what is the note going to do to you? It helps the arbitrators more than the inconvenience that it could do you. - Penwhale | 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Other stuff

user:Tajik's block

Hello. user:Tajik was ujustly block on the false accusation that he was user:Tajik-Professor. I know both of these users off Misplaced Pages and I know for a fact that they are not the same person. Both users are from Germany that is why the admins simply assumed they were the same person. If they only looked more carefully at his IP and their edit histories they would easily see he was not him.

Also, here you told him to make his case, but he can't because he is block indefinatly. So how can he defend himself?

Please intervene with this because user:Dmcdevit has something against user:Tajik and will simply ignore me. Thanks. --Behnam 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

user: Tajik cannot work on the arbitration because he is blocked indefinatly. So how can he work on the arbitration? --Behnam 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Have him use {{unblock}} on his talk page to indicate he wants to work on arbitration. - Penwhale | 20:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tajik can e-mail any or all of the arbitrators, most of whose email addresses are given at WP:AC or may be accessed through the wikipedia e-mail feature. Most of the arbitrators have checkuser access and can double-check Dmcdevit's findings. Thatcher131 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:6f1a.jpg requires attention

Hello. An image you had previously uploaded, Image:6f1a.jpg, did not have a licensing tag. Another editor has tagged the image as {{GFDL-presumed}}. You may wish to visit the image page and provide the correct license. You can view a list of all the image licensing tags at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags/All. The image risks being nominated for deletion as failing to have a license. Many of these {{GFDL-presumed}} image are used on User pages. --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for pointing that out, I'm using Mozilla Firefox and on Times New Roman (18) it appeared well arranged. Restored old setup :-)
_{Freedom skies| talk}  17:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Evangeline Williamson

On Evangeline Williamson her relationship status was removed can you put it back, with Todd Manning: (Seriously dated) 2007 (Close friends since 2003) It must have gotten removed during vandalism, spam and edit warring by new users.--Migospia†♥ 03:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Dede261 keeps adding and removing things in the Evangeline Williamson article, don't know if anythin can be done--Migospia†♥ 05:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ask the user his rationale. If he doesn't answer and keeps it up, file 3RR/page protection request. - Penwhale | 05:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have discussed this issue with the user in the past she says Evangeline and Cistian are soulmates, meaning she would state that and remove reltionship status wth Todd--Migospia†♥ 05:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ask user to provide proof. - Penwhale | 05:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well as you can see that does not work, and she should not be removing thngs from an article just because she doesn't like it --Migospia†♥ 05:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Point to the discussion, please. - Penwhale | 05:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Evangeline Williamson --Migospia†♥ 06:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I need a little bit more time to go around about this, as I'm not extremely familiar with the show. - Penwhale | 06:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Another user is removing information and picture from the article (). I have talked about it on their talk page.
  • I honestly don't know what to do the user keeps removing information and adding confusing text and when I bring it up on her talk page she reverts it there too--Migospia†♥ 12:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit on Chiyo Mihama

I consider this a legit edit, but something in the edit had made my browser break the code in the page, so I had to revert it. Thought I'd let you know. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, have a screenshot. See those bars in your edit I reverted? I don't know what went wrong. Something must be wrong with my browser, but I don't know what. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert parole

Hi, Penwhale. There is a proposed decision related with the revert parole. However, that revert parole is just reflecting the articles i had conflicts with Tajik. As you might have already recognized Tajik was blocked indefinitely because of sockpuppetry. Then, what will be the new revert parole? and how long i'll be kept under probation? I may voluntarily accept the WP:1RR revert rule for all articles of wikipedia for a period of 1 year, if the arbitration committe members still consider/suspect that E104421 as an edit/revert warrior. I should also note that i've alrady taken WP:ROWN as a principle. I pointed this out also in the workshop here. Regards. E104421 12:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, Penwhale. My request is not only about the duration but also about the content of the revert parole (the previous one was related with the articles of conflict). Actually, what will be the new revert parole? Regards. E104421 11:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As written, the revert parole is indefinite and applies to all articles. Fred Bauder 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You might apply later for relief if things go well. Fred Bauder 14:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

speedy

Right, Not all schools are notable, and certainly Charles Conder Primary School is among the non-notable ones, but speedy for notability is limited to people, groups, companies, and web sites. So I changed it to a prod, which will do just as well. Thanks for spotting it. DGG 20:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Von Neumann Universal Constructor

The topic of this article is, of its very nature, quite technical. It is therefore quite unlikely that any article respecting the topic of von Neumann universal construction will be both easily digestible by the lay reader and fully descriptive of the topic. William R. Buckley 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the flag is some technicality, and not necessarily respective of a view you hold that the article is unapproachable by the lay reader. (Did I understand you correctly?) Yet, it remains the case that the article probably cannot do justice to its topic without also being a challenge to the reader. What I hope to get from you is either specific recommendations for article content change, or a removal of the flag, or some kind of middle ground, which recognises the two positions we hold - that the article is a technical challenge to readers, and it is so because of its subject. Comments? William R. Buckley 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see I have made an error. More careful review is needed, it would seem. Thanks for the clarification. William R. Buckley 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Haruhi images

(I saw the note during AX). Anyways, I got some pictures for you. I am not sure how they will turn out, but I hope you enjoyed it. (I also cosplayed as Kyon and took pictures of the Haruhi manga a few times, so you should be fine). However, I was not able to take photos of the Japanese VA's due to them being a virtual no-show during the entire convention. User:Zscout370 02:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration clerk

The last I heard from the Arbitration Committee, there were 6 in favor of promoting you and no objections; after allowing a further week for comment and hearing nothing, I have officially listed you as a clerk for the Arbitration committee. Congratulations. Thatcher131 03:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well. Newyorkbrad 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Links

Thanks, didn't realize that. StokerAce 15:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)