| Revision as of 14:18, 25 September 2009 view sourceMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 1d) to User talk:Gwen Gale/archive15.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:38, 25 September 2009 view source Ottava Rima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,327 edits →ArbCom: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
| ] may be of interest. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC) | ] may be of interest. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == ArbCom == | |||
| You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— | |||
| * ]; | |||
| * ]. | |||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> | |||
Revision as of 14:38, 25 September 2009
 | Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why. |
| If I left a post on your talk page please answer there, I'll see it, no worries. If you leave a post here, I'll answer here. Now and then I don't think an answer from me is needed. If you wanted one anyway, I'll be happy to get a wee nudge. |
Talk archives
| |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 |
Your post
Hello Madam or Sir, I know my edit was not perfectly done. Like I know user Skomorokh is not correct to say that the claim in the GNU section of Stallman's bio is well sourced. The point is that to use Drepper and Raymond as sources to make such a general statements in a biographical page clearly violates NPOV. Drepper and Raymond themselves have well documented issues that would make them qualify for that description of "difficult to work with". So their claims should be taken with care and skepticism and not as the definitive and ultimate source.--Grandscribe (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:Point then and please don't do that again, either. As you were posting this, I was looking over that section of the article. I think the other text also goes beyond the pale and have taken it out. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. I will follow your advice. Thank you for your efforts to help improve the article and make it comply with Misplaced Pages policies.--Grandscribe (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 21 September 2009
- From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
- News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
ding
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Falsification
I wish to bring your attention (qua that of an admin) to Talk:Quantity theory of money#Example is misleading, and in particular to an attempt to falsify the context in which a reply was made. Perhaps nothing further will come of the matter, but I wanted to raise a flag. —SlamDiego←T 23:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Next time something like that happens, rs it with something in the edit summary like, "Did you remove this by mistake?" Looks like the editor could have been removing their own original research, a good faith thing to do (though editors who have been here a long time would tend to <s>
strike</s> something like that out if an answer has already shown up, as one did there). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Next time something like that happens, rs it with something in the edit summary like, "Did you remove this by mistake?" Looks like the editor could have been removing their own original research, a good faith thing to do (though editors who have been here a long time would tend to <s>
- Well, the “original research” in this case concerned the character and motives of another editor. I did explain to the author that the proper way to withdraw sucha remark, after a reply had been made to it, was to strike through it. —SlamDiego←T 00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then, say they were withdrawing a personal attack drawn from original research. Looks more hopeful than harmful, but feel free to let me know if more worries get stirred up. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it may have been an attempt at withdrawal. As to “original research” in the remaining content, that is one valid way of categorizing it. (Fundamentally, the editor began by confusing the equation of exchange with the quantity theory of money; after that, there are multiple possible interpretations of what (s)he has been doing, but each could legitimately be said to involve “original research”.) I acknowledhe that no immediate administrative action is necessary; but I am less hopeful about the future. TNX. —SlamDiego←T 02:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- They only have a dozen or so contributions, bears watching but it's way too soon to tell. Lots of helpful editors here had kinda rough/glitchy beginnings, until they understood how things are done. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Heads up
This may be of interest. Roger Davies 01:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#RS and Fringe Noticeboard and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,